If Job 38:4 refers to the time before the earth was created, isn't the same time being referred to in 38:7?
AMP - 7 When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
As I read Job 38:4-7 it is clear to me that God is speaking of creation, before He created man. Therefore the sons of God would have to be angelic beings, in this case. That is my understanding of these verses.
The Hebrew phrase translated as ‘sons of God’ in the Masoretic Text is benê-hā´elōhîm. Bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm (‘sons of God’) are divine beings or angels. It however presents translation challenges, and older translations and versions also seem to have problems translating and understanding it in some texts. For example: The contentious issue surrounding the translation of Genesis 6: 2-4. I will not delve into this issue as the question presented is; Who are the "sons of God" in Job 38:7? Therefore in context Bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm is equivalent to angels in the following passages: Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7.
From my understanding upon reading Job 1:6 when the sons of God gathered and satan was among them and God ask where did he come from etc. then God asked him ave you considered my servant Job? From this it is my belief that it is definitely after the fall of man, Adam has given up his right so satan is representing him as the ruler of the earth ( Adam gave it up) Adam should have been there when the sons of God gathered. So I am under the impression that Son's of God were angelic beings and satan was among them because Adam lost his position. I position myself if there is a correction to this.
This is a question I have studied since becoming a Christian without being able to reach a definitive conclusion. Regarding the line of Seth option, nowhere in scripture is the line of Seth referred to as the sons of God. Unbiased exegesis of the text must rule out the daughters of men being from a specific line as, in context, it would seem to refer to all daughters of men from every line (i.e. womankind.) The despot line of reasoning also fails to fit with proper exegesis but is forced on the scripture to offer an explanation. It doesn’t arise from the scripture in question but is imposed on it (i.e. is an example of eisegesis.) While I'm not thoroughly convinced that the "sons of God" are fallen angels, common arguments against that view are flawed. Specifically, Christ states (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25) that the resurrected "neither marry nor are given in marriage" but are “like the angels IN HEAVEN”, not the fallen angels, nor does He say that they are sexless. Indeed, angels in scripture are always referred to as being male in appearance. As to the argument that Angels are spiritual and could not have sexual relations with humans, there are accounts in scripture of angels taking on human form (Genesis 18, the angels that visited Abraham, two of which went on to Sodom to rescue Lot) so that argument is flawed. Also, everywhere the term “sons of God” is used in scripture it clearly refers to angels (e.g. Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7) so to consider them something else in this one passage ignores the clear biblical definition and thereby violates sola scriptura exegesis. Not much help as far as a definitive answer I realize, but at least I can say that I find the fallen angel interpretation the most convincing of the three proffered.
There is another consideration. We often think a certian way when we approach the scripture. I think sometimes we forget that we are talking about and trying to understand the "Word of God." Just as when we attempt to understand what someone else has written it becomes helpful and sometimes even critical to consider who is writing, how they think, what their reality is and what may be normal for them, but far different from what we could ever imagine or think. So here goes...When the sons of God present themselves before the Lord is it who we might refer to as the future sons of God (the Redeemed of the Lord) but who in God's timing and sense are presently before Him? John saw a number of the redeemed that cannot be numbered, a number which is still at our time being made up, being born and being born again, yet in God's reality they are already complete. Basically what I am attempting to say here is that this is the Word of God and we need to consider that His reality and timelessness is not like our reality which is limited and tempered by time. Consider these few verses from Isaiah: 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Here the prophet obviously speaks as if all this has already happened (He was wounded...He was bruised) when the one he is speaking of had yet to be born some 700 or so years later. The past, present and future are all the same to God. He beholds them all at the same time, all at once. So when we find these verses in Job: 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Do we find it yet more amazing that not only was Job not there when God laid the foundations of the earth, but at the same time He created the earth (to us it is the past) the Sons of God (to us it is the future redeemed of the Lord) shouted for joy? Only God can create the past and have the future rejoice when He does it!
This topic of “Sons of God” in the books of Genesis and Job has sparked a lot of questions by Christians and non-Christians alike. Many Christian leaders have tried to answer a part to fit with their own doctrine whilst leaving the other part unanswered because they just can’t explain it. If we are to be true to ourselves we have not come to a perfect understanding of it because there remains gaps unreaveled to us. I would like to share some thoughts on the subject: The first account of its usage: Genesis 6:2-5 KJV Before this account nowhere in scriptures was the phrase “sons of God” used. To say that it means the sons of Seth is an assumption because nowhere is that confirmed in scripture. “Daughters of men” I will not take to mean exclusively as ungodly women because it also meant “womankind” just like “son of man” is also referred to in scripture as “Mankind.” Sometimes it will just mean mankind in general terms or ungodly men so I believe the same rule applies to “daughters of men”. Though we cannot conclude exclusively that it meant “ungodly women” it is also justifiable because this situation grieves God’s Spirit causing God to limit man’s days on the earth to a hundred and twenty years. God also saw wickedness on the earth which follows that this is also a contributory factor. The aspect of “sons of God” (whether spiritual or physical or both), married these human women (ungodly or godly) if you like and Children where born through them. Now I want us first to examine the children born through them. The Children that were born from this union, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Let’s think for one minute... If these sons of God were descendants of Seth or the godly as some arguments go. When believers and unbelievers marry do they give birth to “mighty and renown men?” The Answer is no! If the answer is no then we can conclude that these “sons of God” though possessing human bodies where not just humans. Something was special about them. That is what is causing some to even suggests that these sons of God where the inhabitance of the earth before it was destroyed. (No Biblical evidence for that). The Second Usage: The accounts in Job unquestionably led us to believe that the sons of God he was taking about were angels: Job 1:6, Job 2:1 & Job 38:7 Can we conclude that these sons of God here and the ones in Genesis are the same? Satan and his one-third fallen angels were all over the earth. Now these sons of God, angelic being were gathered before God and Satan came and joined them. Unexplained. He was cast out of Heaven, how did he get back there? Did this meeting took place in Heaven or on Earth? We don’t know but the very fact that Satan was there makes me believe it was a meeting of angelic beings, so these sons of God were angels. We also see another unexplained incidence in the book of Kings where a lying Spirit appeared in the presence of God’s angels but that’s another story. Lucifer, our Lord Jesus and born-again believers are called “sons of God.” When referring to Jesus, “Son” is capitalised. We also see that Lucifer is called “son of the morning” Isaiah 14:12; and our Lord Jesus, “morning star” (Revelation 22:16) Mark12 does not say that angels are sexless, it just said that they do not marry neither are given in marriage. At the resurrection we too will not marry or be given in marriage. Does that mean we will be sexless in Heaven? Maybe, maybe not. Do angels take the form of men with physical bodies? Yes. Many times in the Bible, and they appear as men. Is there a possibility that these falling angels would have taken the form of men and mate with women and because of their higher intelligence caused their children to become “mighty men” and “men of Renown.” Yes it is possible. Demons can do that. Greeks and Hebrew mythology also has its origin from this.
As the Book of Job begins, we are, as it were, reading Act 1, Scene 1 of a holy drama. It is a wonderful teaching story dealing with the vexing problem of good versus evil and how a good God is ever active in both.
Who are “the sons of God”? (Genesis 6:2) One of the interpretations regarding who “the sons of God” are is the “fallen angels” view. This view says that demonic angels engaged in sexual relations with the “daughters of men”. According to Davis this view was held by some ancient writers like, “Philo, Josephus, most of the rabbinical writes, and the oldest church fathers-Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius.” The second view is that the “sons of God” were tyrannical/dynastic rulers in the Cainite line. It is argued that magistrates, kings, or administrators of justice are called “elohim” in Exodus 21:6; 22:8, 9, 28, and Psalm 82:1, 6. Bruce Waltke appears to hold this view, “The best solution is to combine the “angelic” interpretation with the “divine king” view. The tyrants were demon possessed.” The third view is that it refers to the “line of Seth”. This view is held by many Christians today and was held by historical Christian theologians like Augustine and the Reformers. This view says that “the sons of God” were the godly line of Seth and they married the ungodly daughters from the line of “Cain. R.C. Sproul supports this view saying, “the Bible traces the lines of two families, the descendants of Cain and of Seth.” The line of Cain is described as being very wicked and was most recognizable in the conduct of his son Lamech in Genesis chapter 4. However, Seth’s line is described as righteous. I hold to the “sons of God” as referring to the godly line of Seth. First of all I think a person must torture Scripture to hold the “fallen angel” view. The angels view assumes angels can have sexual relations with humans. Bruce Waltke said, “This interpretation…contradicts Jesus’ statement that angels do not marry.” (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25). Angels do not have “flesh”, they are spirits and cannot have sexual relations with humans. The “tyrants view” seems to be imposing the view on the text; there is no reference made to them. The view that they are kings is assumed. I think the most natural reading of the text is better. The context of what is being discussed is regarding the lines of the two men. We are told that Seth’s descendants “began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26), “walked with God” (Gen. 5:24), and “found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” (Gen. 6:8) The genealogical lines of Seth and Cain are being described and all we see from Cain’s line is evil. The other two views try to explain who “the sons of God” are but they fail to reconcile why. The “line of Seth” view helps us to understand the line of salvation in Christ and why God warned Israel not to take foreign wives in Deuteronomy 7:3.
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.