Paul Ellingworth's Commentary Regarding Hebrews 1:5

I apologize that some of the characters became unintelligible because this file is an epub format:

On (b), angels are called sons of God collectively, not only in the MT (Jb. 2:1; 38:7) but even in the LXX (Gn. 6:2, 4; Dt. 32:43; Pss. 29[LXX 28]:1; 89[LXX 88]:7). The tendency to translate "sons" as "angels" is found both in the LXX (see especially the addition to Dt. 32:43; - Heb. 1:6) and in Philo (Gig. 6f.; Deus Imm. 1.2.3; Quaest. in Gn. 1.92; cf. Jos. Ant. 1.73). In such contexts, "angels" reflects the interpretation of "sons" in hellenistic settings in which Jewish monotheism needed to be protected. At an earlier stage in the Hebrew tradition, the concept of an assembly of divine beings, subordinate to Yahweh, may have been influential (Cooke 1964). In Dn. 3:92 MT 3:25), where the LXX has oµoutu. ayye)ov 9eov, Theodotion reproduces the MT more closely with oµoia vt4 eEov. Even if the writer of Hebrews was using a Theodotionic Vorlage, his argument would not be ruined by this text, since it is a simile and not a divine declaration. More difficult is Ps. 82(LXX 81):6, where the existence of pagan gods is assumed (cf. v. 1), and an unidentified speaker declares, in language similar to that of Ps. 2:7:

ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου πάντες

Since the first line is quoted in Jn. 10:34, it is possible that the writer of Hebrews would have considered it. If so, he probably understood it ironically, as the context suggests. His argument may thus be considered valid within its own terms of reference: the OT contains no statement about any individual (τίνι) angel in which God on any occasion (ποτε) declared him to be his Son.