In his commentary on Job, Matthew Henry suggests that the “sons of God” in chapters 1 and 2 may be interpreted as human worshipers on earth, gathering for religious assemblies at designated times. To be clear, Henry presents this view as one option alongside what is by far the more common view, that the sons of God are angelic beings appearing before the Lord in a heavenly court. It is surprising that Henry gives no indication of preferring one view over the other, given the overwhelming prominence of the latter view over the former.
In any case, that Henry was even willing to countenance the human view at all, gives me some hope that perhaps it’s a view worth exploring, developing, and even defending. To that end, I’m putting together a sampling of arguments that have been marinating in my own mind, to demonstrate, at the very least, that the view is reasonable and does not deserve to be ignored, as it largely has been.
Circumstantial Language
The assembly of the sons of God is introduced with circumstantial language that is decidedly earthly, rather than heavenly. The words “Now there was a day when” in 1:6 and 2:1 most naturally set these events, at least in part, within the physical world. In fact, every time this phrase is used elsewhere in the Old Testament (including at Job 1:13!) it introduces earthly events.
If the sons of God in these verses are to be taken as angels assembling in heaven, then apparently this event takes place entirely within the celestial realm. But it would be highly unusual for such an event to be described as taking place on a certain day, and this would be the only instance in the Old Testament where the associated Hebrew phrase is used in that way. This awkwardness is alleviated, however, if we understand the event to be a hybrid of earthly and heavenly. The exchange between God and Satan presumably took place in the heavenly realm, but the occasion for that exchange (the assembly of the sons of God) was an earthly event which occurred on a particular day.
It may be granted that time-based descriptions of events, whether earthly or heavenly, are often inescapable in human language. But the phrase “there was a day when” seems to go beyond the level of mere linguistic convention, and is strongly suggestive of a historical event occurring within ordinary time and space. This conclusion would in turn lead us to interpret “the sons of God” as human beings, specifically godly men who have assembled to worship the Lord on a designated day.
Narrative Coherence
Given this interpretation, it would seem practically certain that Job is present at this assembly of the sons of God, and a number of details within the narrative would support this conclusion.
(1) The assembly of the sons of God presenting themselves to the Lord occurs immediately after the description of Job’s continual practice of bringing offerings to the Lord (1:5). This suggests, to put it ruggedly, that the presenting-to-the-Lord of verse 6 is a specific example of the general practice of presenting-to-the-Lord described in verse 5.
(2) It is said that Job “continually” made such offerings to the Lord (1:5), which fits the apparently regular frequency of the assemblies of the sons of God within the narrative.
(3) God’s eventual suggestion of Job to Satan (1:8) becomes more natural and fitting within the overall scene if Job is present among those who are presenting themselves to the Lord.
Thus, I would argue that this reading brings a considerable amount of coherence to the narrative. I say this not to suggest that the angelic view is pejoratively incoherent. That view, however, does seem to result in a comparatively disjointed narrative, requiring a radical shift from one ontological sphere to another. Commentators indeed frequently describe 1:6 as an abrupt scene change from the earthly realm to the heavenly. But there is not such a radical shift if the assembly of the sons of God is a human gathering in which Job himself is present.
Theological Consistency
The above arguments primarily pertain to specific details within the text of Job 1. I now want to widen the lens in an attempt to show that the human interpretation of the sons of God fits remarkably well with what we see elsewhere in Scripture, specifically relating to the activity of Satan and his relationship to the sons of God.
Peter tells us, “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). This imagery sounds almost directly inspired by the depiction of Satan we find in Job 1. When God asks Satan where he has come from, Satan responds, “from going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it,” (Job 1:7) which parallels Peter’s description of Satan prowling around. God then responds by asking Satan whether he has considered Job, which may initially strike the reader as odd for the fact that it does not seem to flow logically from anything Satan has explicitly said. Yet the strong implication is that the unstated purpose of Satan’s prowling was to seek someone. And it’s clear from the rest of the story that Satan’s ultimate purpose was to destroy that someone. Therefore, in sum, Job 1 contains arguably the clearest example of Satan “prowling around . . . seeking someone to devour.”
Thus far, proponents of the angelic view of the sons of God may fully agree with what has been said concerning Satan. However, on the human interpretation, Peter’s predatory description of Satan (which is, again, arguably based on Job 1) helps provide a satisfactory answer to an age-old question: What is Satan even doing among the sons of God in the first place? The answer is: precisely what he’s always doing – seeking someone to destroy. For it stands to reason that “the sons of God,” understood as godly men who faithfully lead their families and communities in serving the Lord, would be Satan’s most desirable targets.
Additionally, in Revelation 12:10, Satan is described as “the accuser of the brothers . . . who accuses them day and night before our God.” Believers are called “brothers” for the fact that they are sons of the same Father. Thus, Satan is the accuser/adversary of the sons of God, which means his presence among them in Job 1 actually makes a good deal of sense. Notice also that Satan is said to accuse them day and night “before God,” which is very consistent with the scenes presented in Job 1 and 2, which involve the same three parties: God, Satan, and the accused brothers (the sons of God).
Satan’s presence among the sons of God is likewise consistent with his activity across the whole of the Bible. He is the adversary of Adam (Gen. 3) of Joshua (Zech. 3:1), of David (1 Chron. 21:1), of Peter and the disciples (Luke 22:31), and of Paul (2 Corinthians 12:7). Most significantly, Satan is the adversary of Christ himself, the true Son of God of which all other “sons of God” are shadows. Indeed the typological connection between Job and Christ is made all the more vivid if Job himself is presented in the narrative as a “son of God” who is assailed and tempted by Satan, much like Christ himself would be (“if you are the Son of God,” Matt. 4:6).
Objection: Job 38:7
Many interpreters cite Job 38:7 in support of the angelic view of the sons of God in Job 1 and 2. In this passage, God is satirically interrogating Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone” (38:4–6). God is here describing his earliest and most foundational acts of creation, which Job himself was obviously not present to witness. God then describes this early period of creation as a time “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (38:7). So what does “sons of God” refer to in this verse?
(1) Most interpreters believe it refers to angelic beings. Given the pre-human time period described by the context, it follows that the only suitable reference would be to angels. This is by far the most common view, even among those who take a human view of the sons of God in other controversial passages (like Genesis 6).
(2) The phrase may also be taken as a metaphorical description of general elements within God’s creation (cf. Psalm 19:1). Heavenly phenomena like the sun, moon, stars, and planets all have an existence which ultimately originates from God, and therefore may poetically be described as his “sons.”
(3) It is possible that “sons of God” here could be a reference to the earliest generations of human beings, who were the first to experience and rejoice in God’s creation. (John Gill expresses openness to this interpretation.) Recall that Adam himself was a “son of God” (Luke 3:38) along with (in my view) those generally listed among the godly descendants of Seth in Genesis 5. This earliest period of human history, which presumably predates Job, would thus still fit the context and purpose of Job 38.
To be fully transparent, I am not confident which of the above views is correct. Views 1 and 2 are both very reasonable, and the former is overwhelmingly the majority view. View 3, however, I also find reasonable, as well as attractive in terms of its overall consistency with what I understand to be the most common meaning of “sons of God” in the Bible.
That said, even if view #1 is correct in this case, it would not follow that “sons of God” should be viewed as an ordinary designation for angels. It would be better to view Job 38:7 as a unique occasion in which the title is perhaps poetically applied to angels. In addition, it should also not be assumed that the phrase carries the same meaning in Job 1 and 2, as that is an entirely separate context and even genre.
