In Job's testing, Job's sons all died. When God restored him, he had seven sons and three daughters. He gave the daughters an inheritance among their brothers. Would Job's grandsons (The daughters' sons) have been "sons of Job" by lineage? Or does verse 16 indicate that the daughters sons were not considered his sons?

Job 42:15-16

טו וְלֹא נִמְצָא נָשִׁים יָפוֹת, כִּבְנוֹת אִיּוֹב--בְּכָל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נַחֲלָה, בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵיהֶם.
טז וַיְחִי אִיּוֹב אַחֲרֵי-זֹאת, מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה; וירא (וַיִּרְאֶה), אֶת-בָּנָיו וְאֶת-בְּנֵי בָנָיו--אַרְבָּעָה, דֹּרוֹת.

  • Huh? What does "'sons of Job' by lineage mean, and what does verse 16 have to do with it? – msh210 May 19 '16 at 0:50
  • If Job lived in Cana'an during the period of slavery, as seems to be the common conception based on midrashim, then had he had sons, they would have been there possibly at the time of Joshua and would have had to forfeit their land. Perhaps this was an intentional blessing that he'd only have daughters. – CashCow May 19 '16 at 8:23
  • It doesn't indicate anything either way. It says "sons", but does not define them. – N.T. Apr 25 at 23:53

You must log in to answer this question.