Good points.

I guess I was trying to point out that this position in the structure is the “Trumpets” army. At Creation, it would no doubt have been angels. Later, it is men. After Jesus’ resurrection, it was the saints who rose from the graves who testified in Jerusalem. After Pentecost (stars/lights) it was the apostolic witness. And after the “death” of the firstfruits church in the Judaic “wilderness”, it was the final Trumpet, the two witnesses, hence John’s reference to the saints as “the sons of God.”

Of course, this means that in Noah’s pattern, there was no “swarms” witness. All were corrupt. There was no “Deuteronomic” generation under Noah (as Moses) to cross into the new Land—only animal substitutes.

Noah’s new earth seems possible, I guess. Imo, that’s the best explanation for how the sons of God could refer to godly humans (alive or dead). I still have a lingering suspicion, though, that the passage refers to the original creation because the whole point of the book is to bring out God’s magnificence. God seems to be asking, “Were you there when no other humans were around?” If it is talking about creation, then I think it pretty much has to mean that the sons of God are angels. The only non-angelic sons of God around near the time of Creation would be Adam and Christ.

Overall, I do still suspect that the phrase meant angels, although I’m not absolutely committed to the idea and don’t think it’s terribly important either way. If your interpretation of Job were correct, it would actually help me out in one sense: I believe the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell is probably unbiblical, and if the OT showed that believers were in heaven then that would settle the matter. Regarding your own theology, I remember you’ve argued that the 24 elders in Revelation are angels so I doubt that interpreting these sons of God as angels would really undermine your position either.

Supposedly the other Middle Eastern cultures often used the term “sons of God” to refer to lesser deities, and the Bible even seems to give us an example of this use in Daniel 3:25 (granted, it’s in Aramaic rather than Hebrew). Although it’s possible that Nebuchanezzar was making a Christian confession as the KJV translates the verse, in my opinion Nebuchanezzar didn’t actually get saved until later in Chapter 3 or perhaps in Chapter 4. Therefore, he was probably just using the term to reference a supernatural being/spirit.

Regarding the Hebrews 1 passage, I don’t think it’s actually denying that angels are God’s sons. Rather, it’s just saying that they aren’t begotten from the dead like Christ was. Specifically, the line about “Today have I begotten thee” refers to Christ’s resurrection (see Acts 13:33), and does not refer to his incarnation or Trinitarian emanation from the Father or whatever else.

Job 1 is a chiasm, the center of which is this heavenly court scene. The subject? The righteousness of Job’s children, the righteousness of Job, the role of the accuser of the brethren that Satan plays.

Great Post!

btw, I wrote a two part blog entry on the narratival impossibility of the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 being angels. Here’s the link, if you’re interested

http://involutedgenealogies.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/sons-of-god-and-daughters-of-men-an-exegetical-approach-to-genesis-6/