Several questions have been submitted about angels, the first being, Why are angels called “sons of God” in the Old testament? (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
At the outset it can be said that not all O.T. versions use this terminology in the book of Job. It is true that the Hebrew means sons of God, but looking at the Septuagint (Greek version of the O.T.) it will be seen that the translators chose to use angelos (angel) in the passages specified. I notice that more modern versions like the N.A.S.V. retain sons of God, but others like the N.I.V. have also adopted angels. It might be argued that this was more of an interpretation than a translation, but on reflection, I think it is one of those cases that does no harm (unlike the anglisising of baptizo into baptism for example resulting in many being sprinkled thinking they have done the Lord’s will). In point of fact, if these passages do not have angels in mind, what are they speaking about? So the question is a legitimate one that is fully cognizant of the fact that sons of God is used of angels in the book of Job.
Further “sons” can be used in a non-gender-specific way in the Bible. For example, 1 John 3:1,2 in the K.J.V. has sons, but later versions have children. That this is better is evident from Gal. 3:26 which makes it plain both male and female can be Christians. Also the word is teknon (that which is born; from tikto, to bear), which includes sons and daughters. Also, the problem of brevity comes into it. The ancients weren’t hung up with political correctness or the influence of feminism; neither were they offended by the use of mankind, manhole, spokesman et.al. The use of masculine pronouns was often a catch-all: eg. Mk. 16:16:- He that believes and is baptised includes the she’s as well. It negates having to labouriously say he or she, and no sleight of womanhood is intended, and neither should it be taken.
Further to that, the word uios, translated as son, is used to characterise one as to his origin and nature. So in Gen. 6:1 we have reference to the sons of God and the daughters of men. These expressions are used over against one another to speak of the fleshly-minded versus the spiritually-minded. As we go through the Old testament we have reference to the sons of lawlessness (Judges 19:22), sons of valour (2 Sam. 2:7), sons of the transportation (or captivity) (Ezra 4:1). The New Testament also uses similar expressions: sons of the prophets (Acts 3:25), sons of the covenant (Acts 3:25), sons of wisdom (Matt.11:19), sons of the resurrection (Luke 20:36), sons of murderers (Matt.23:31), sons of the bridechamber (Matt.9:15), sons of the Kingdom (Matt.8:12), sons of the wicked one (Matt.13:38), sons of Gehenna (Matt. 23:15), sons of peace (Luke 10:6), sons of perdition (John 17:12), son of consolation (Acts 4:30), son of the Devil (Acts 13:10), sons of this age (Luke 16:8), sons of light (Luke 16:8), and sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:2). Again these expressions are not gender specific, but refer to the origin or starting point of the person referred to, and the relation to which they stand or their character and associations.
We must make the point that angels are without gender or marriage (Matt. 22:30), thus in calling them sons of God, no reference to gender is in mind, but rather it is saying they are created beings who derive from God, and serve God, having a relationship with Him. They have personality and rank, and we know the names of some (Gabriel, Michael). They have an eternal destiny like us, Hell being created for the Devil and his angels. We know that not all have been obedient, and thus it would not make sense to call the angels that sinned sons of God, neither the Devil, a son of God.
Also, it is fitting to call angels sons of God. Because they are free-will creatures also created in the image of God. They are said to be a little greater than us (Ps. 8:5), and as to when they were created it is apparent they were created before man, as can be ascertained from Job 38:7 where they are described as rejoicing in God’s creation of the world.
Again, it is fitting to call them sons of God since they are not God, but servants of God and not deserving of worship (Rev. 22:8,9). Unlike God who cannot be tempted, angels are free-will creatures that can be tempted through pride and some have sinned (Jude 6) in that way as has the Devil (1 Tim. 3:6).
As to the second question, How does this relate to Christ being the Son of God, Christ came, not in angelic form, but in human form (Heb. 2:9):- that is, He came in a form a little lower than the angels but not SO much lower that He was no longer in the image of God (Besides, that would be impossible). He was truly THE Son of God, in that HE was truly from God as to origin and in the perfect character and personality of God. In no sense could He be called a son of Belial or son of disobedience or son of the Devil etc. He was a Son in that he was begotten of the Father, brought into this world to live the kind of life that a Son of God should live. Our status as sons of God only comes through Him (John 1:12). To redeem the world the Father did not send A Son, but His own Son (Rom. 8:32).
The word monogenes, is found 9 times in the New Testament. It is translated as only twice (Luke 7:12; 8:42). Once it is translated as only child (Luke 9:38), and 6 times it is translated as only begotten (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; Heb. 11:17 and 1 John 4:9). Five times it refers to Christ and once (Heb. 11:17) it refers to Isaac as the only begotten son of Isaac. One of the problems associated with this expression is the word itself, monogenes. Add another (n) and you have monogennes, which literally means “only begotten”. But the Greek text has monogenes (one n) which makes the word from monos – only, alone and genos – a being (from ginomai – to be). So the two words joined together gives a meaning of lone being, a unique experience, the only one of its kind, that which has no duplicate. So, while Isaac was not the only begotten of Abraham, he was the only son of promise amongst the sons of Abraham, and so Jesus is the only Son of God to fulfil the promise. He is in a class by Himself. Jesus is God’s only Son to “fulfil the promise God made to our fathers (Acts 26:6) (This is similar to Jesus being called the firstborn – it has no reference to His birth to Mary, but to His importance).
Of course, Jesus could only be physically begotten. The idea of a spiritual begettal is impossible because of His eternal deity (Mic. 5:2; Heb. 13:8). But His physical begettal through Mary is not in focus in the use of this term. Note in Acts 13:32,33 and Heb. 1:5-12; 5:5, that the term translated begotten , refers, not to His conception and birth through Mary, but to His resurrection and coronation. So Ps. 2:7 refers to His resurrection and coronation for it was then (vs. 8,9) that he was granted rulership of the world. This is also the idea behind Rom. 1:4:- He did not become the Son of God at His resurrection, but rather this was a powerful demonstration of His uniqueness (which was already His).
So, though angels can be called sons of God, the Hebrew writer draws a distinction between them and Jesus. He asks a rhetorical question in Heb. 1:5:- of which angel was it ever said ”you are my Son, this day I have begotten you?” They are sons of God, even as we, but they are not THE Son of God, that unique One who lived for a time as God in the flesh.
But this same passage, Heb.1, answers the other question, Do Christians have guardian angels? If so, what is their work? Notice v.7 calls them minister or servants, and v.14 declares their work involves serving the heirs of salvation, who would, in this dispensation, be Christians.
That there are dimensions to life beyond this one has been amply demonstrated by the power and diversity of the universe in which we live. God has made planets so huge that thousands of our earth could fit inside them, and also things that are so small we cannot see them with the naked eye. And he has made life forms of all sorts, from delicate flowers that last for a few days to huge trees that live for thousands of years, from bacteria to worms to elephants to the chief of His animal creations, the mighty dinosaurs.
So it should not surprise us if this God can house our eternal spirits in a body of flesh and blood, but can also house other eternal spirits in bodies of another dimension. Such are angels. Their work is theirs, not ours. It seems their curiosity about what God was doing with us (1 Pet. 1:12) is matched by our curiosity about them. We get glimpses of their manifestation to certain individuals who were involved in the unfolding plan of God to bring the Christ into the world. Angels brought the law to Moses; they revealed the historical dramas from Babylon to Rome to Daniel, and angels appeared to shepherds at the birth of Jesus. But whilst the plan to bring about salvation through the Christ has been accomplished and their need to miraculously inject themselves for such ends has been accomplished, there remains an ongoing work to serve us in the spiritual realm.
It makes perfect sense that God would supply help in that area when the Devil and his angels are loose in that same area. It is not for us to need to know how angelic creatures contend. Whilst the term, guardian angel, nowhere appears in scripture, I guess the idea might come from Ps. 91:11,12. This is the passage that the Devil quoted to Jesus in the temptation in the wilderness (Matt. 4:5-7). It is instructive to note that this did not give Jesus, or anyone else for that matter, the right to tempt the Lord. Angels did come and minister to Him after the forty day fast (Matt.4:11), but He did not believe it gave Him the right to jump from the pinnacle of the temple and see if they would catch him.
Our commission is to do the will of the Lord as revealed in the Scriptures. By all means let us take comfort that we are not in this battle alone, God having provided unseen spiritual helpers, but let God do His work, let the angels do their work, and let us do ours.