Who is the son in the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:14)?

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”?

Or again,

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 ...

Psalm 2

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."

This one in particular is begotten of the Son. The same way The Son of God was begotten of the The Father. So this one is entitled to be called God. All believers are entitled to call themselves Children of God but this one in particular is one of the God head. A newly begotten one of the Godhead. So the Son of God now has a Son. As Psalm 2 indicates. However even at my church this is not accepted as main line thinking. Most I feel think the one is Psalm 2 is Jesus. But really "hidden" in the pages of scripture is the introduction of a new person of the Godhead. Even though God is always "One" a unity. There used to be three persons, Father Son and Holy Spirit. Now there are four. See Isaiah 54 which comes after Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53 talks of Jesus, the Son of God. Isaiah 54 talks of his "Begotten" Son. The reason its important to understand he was begotten is because there is only "One" God. So in order the be called God, you need to have his person in that way. This is different than believers from my understanding. Even though it is hard to explain why since we dont understand Spiritual things the way God does. We have a hard time telling who is a believer and who is not and we bicker back and forth about various things but to God in heaven he see things clearly. So God knows who is who. I know it might be hard to understand how one is different than another but really this one will secure the kingdom for all believers. They need not fight for it, the Battle is the Lords. ( See Psalm 24. The Lord of hosts is the Lord strong and mighty the Lord mighty in battle. ) Forgive me for any lack of clarity. I am trying to be clear but I realize there can be allot of misunderstanding even on my side.

‭‭2 Samuel‬ ‭7:14-16‬ ‭NIV‬‬

I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’

I am a new Christian and this is my own understanding:

Jesus was born through a process just like us, thus he too bore the sins of Adam and Eve. So in God's eye He see sins and not Jesus.

Thus God say this "When he does wrong".

After digging deeper into the Hebrew and contemplating 'penal substitution' soteriology, I ascertained the following: the Hebrew word for 'When' (When He sins) could also be 'if', but that does not help the whole image being provided here in the Chapter and in verse 14. But if we remember that the N.T. author states that 'He (Jesus) became sin' for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), this verse is no longer as problematic.

As Christ was the sin-bearer, he in effect 'became like a sinner' upon receiving the punishment meant for us, the rebellious human race who always rejects God's grace, having hearts predisposed to selfishness and ungodliness. When they translate the 2 Corinthians verse as 'a sin offering' the problem remains. But when we leave it, as I believe, uninterpolated, here's the scenario/explanation:

God determined that man pay for his sins via the offering of a sacrifice. In the case of the 'Scapegoat' the sins were laid on the beast through a ceremonial process. Since sin is upon us all even after we (in the past, via the O.T. sacrificial system) offer sacrifice, the author of Hebrews explains to us why Christ is the final, complete sacrifice for sin, for those who believe. But in order for Christ to pay the penalty for sins, he had to take upon himself the sin of humanity. ALL OF IT! So, on the cross, it's as if God sees the entire tome/library of man's sin - throughout all time - in the body of Christ. With each lash, with each nail, with each beating, Christ - who then spiritually embodied man's sin - looks, for all intents and purposes, as a being in receipt of the wrath and punishments of God. So vicariously, he DID sin, but not in terms of any action taken/engaged in by Himself.

Isaiah explains it then, doesn't he when he says, "The punishment MEANT FOR US" (Isaiah 53:4 / Romans 3:25)

"4 Surely He has borne our griefs (sicknesses, weaknesses, and distresses) and carried our sorrows and pains [of punishment], yet we [ignorantly] considered Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God [as if with leprosy].

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastis*m*nt [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole." Isaiah 53:4-6, Amplified Bible

If you are of the Anabaptist tradition, you will have a hard time explaining this verse, as the Anabaptist (and other denominational) views regarding penal substitution would negate full coverage/work of Christ's sacrifice/atonement. However, if one leans toward the biblical tradition/soteriology of penal substitution, this verse and others come together to form a rather complete image of the work of Christ and the work of God UPON Christ at the time of His crucifixion.

The tradition insists that the passage is indeed about Solomon. Note that the passage does not say that Solomon's kingdom will last — in the event, it did not — but that the throne of the kingdom would endure whether the earthly kingdom did or not. And the Christian tradition would see that promise as fulfilled because Jesus is currently occupying that Davidic throne, in the heavens, and will one day occupy it again on earth.

I must admit, it would have seemed a vast disappointment to the people originally receiving this promise that their kingdom did not, in fact, endure; and that “throne” was not, as they might have reasonably expected, a synecdoche for “kingdom”, but a separate concept that could endure before God whether their nation survived intact or fell. So I am not claiming that the concept of a heavenly throne would have satisfied the original recipients of this promise, or lead them to believe that God was faithful. I am only describing how the promise was worked out as nevertheless the promise of a faithful God in later Jewish and Christian tradition!