little gods: "ye are gods" what did Jesus mean?

If "hyper-grace" is the "deception of the 21st century" (isn't it a little early to tell?), what was the deception of the 20th?   Well, there are too many candidates for what the heresy hunters considered top game, but by the end of the 20th century, there was a lot of uproar over "ye are gods."

And there still is.  So blasphemous was this teaching considered, that when I think back to people affiliated with CRI protesting charismatic ministry conventions, it reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian where the old man is getting stoned for saying the pronouncing the Tetragrammaton. Charges of polytheism, idolatry, creating a pantheon, ... While there may be many versions of it, let's generalize here that the "little gods" doctrine is the belief that being made in the image of God implies something particularly innately godlike about humanity in general, and especially for those in whom the Holy Spirit perfects the image of God's Son.

This seems like too large a topic to cover in one post, overlapping as it does in other controversies, but I wanted to start by surveying what the critics say Jesus actually meant when he brought up the controversial verse in Psalm 82.  By critics, I mean the people that consider the "little gods" doctrine to be patently dangerous.  I wnat to point this out lest a reader say that I am quote-mining authors to show that they support the 'little gods' doctrine;they each obviously have more to say, but we have to start with what Jesus said and what he meant by what he said, before addressing people's interpretations.

Consider that many, from various denominations, argue that the famous passage in the 10th chapter of the Gospel of John demonstrates that Jesus claimed to be God based on the understanding that the reactionary Judeans.  Now this is an interesting conclusion given that they were about as prone to misunderstanding Jesus as the apostles were.  Jesus says that the Judaeans are accusing him of blasphemy because he has referred to himself as God's Son, and then challenges their charge of blasphemy.  

Now let's see whether this point is controversial with the critics.  Here is one paraphrase by a critic at Answering Islam:

'Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said "I am God's Son."'*

There would be no question why if Jesus had claimed to be God as the Judaeans claimed he (implicitly) had.  Yet the the ones who argue trinitarian doctrine based on this passage claim that the Judaean religionists correctly interpreted Jesus' claim to Sonship as either putting himself on a par with God (which begs the question of what Jesus meant by "The Father is greater than I") or as identifying himself as being God by virtue of being made of the same "stuff."  So by taking Jesus words to mean what the Judaeans say they mean, rather than to mean what Jesus says they mean, makes the trinitarian case less strong.  But a choice between the 'little gods' doctrine and trinitarian doctrine is a false dilemma. 

This following statement is from a bona fide heresy hunter:

Essentially, Jesus asked why, when human rulers were called gods, “the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world” (John 10:36) was blaspheming by claiming to be God’s Son.*

Why do Jesus' claims equate himself with God if the scripture already calls men gods?  Why is Psalm 82 even relevant (and not a red herring) when Jesus does not in this exchange even apply theos or elohiym to himself.   His argument is not a real answer to the charge "thou being a man makest thyself to be God" if it is critical to his argument that he, unlike the elohiym in Psalm 82 is in fact The Elohiym.  This, of course, doesn't mean that he isn't the one true Elohiym.  This saying is often characterized as being more or less, "If your Bible says that mere humans are gods, how can you object when a truly divine being such as Myself call Himself God's Son?" At which point, we must conclude that Jesus is terrible at debate or he is indulging his sense of humor here.  It all falls apart if Jesus is really conveying, "If the scripture calls mere men gods, how can you object to God in the flesh calling Himself the Son of God?"

From another critical article at GotQuestions:

If those who hold a divinely appointed office can be considered “gods,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)? ... ¶  Jesus defended His claim to be the Son of God on biblical and semantic grounds—there is a sense in which influential men can be thought of as gods; therefore, the Messiah can rightly apply the term to Himself.*
[emphasis added]

Notice that the argument as given does not depend on Jesus either equating Himself with God or even claiming to be as great as the Father.  And Jesus never directly applies the term "god" to himself; he merely notes that the term "elohiym" was applied by God to men who were also spoken of as sons of God.

Following commentary from Discerning the World:

So these rulers are not gods, they were given this name by mere men, but were they still children of God?  Yes.  But they will die like everyone else.  So the point Jesus was making was that if unjust rulers can be called gods (by men), how can the Jews who wanted to stone Him object to Him saying that he was the Son of God? [emphasis added]*

That commentator also recognizes the core of Jesus' argument, except that he seems to imply that the elohiym title is not really recognized by God since the judges were appointed by men.  There is in fact other places in the Tanakh where councils of Jewish judges are referred to as elohiym, perhaps as an extension of "being brought before Elohiym" as a phrase for being brought before the council (an idea that carries over into the act of being "sworn in" at Western courts).  But Jesus argues to them that since Psalm 82 is considered to be inspired scripture, that the title of "gods" or elohiym is not meant ironically.  Otherwise, Jesus' argument is mere sophistry.  He argues that they must take it meaningfully that God calls the judges elohiym and "sons of the Most High."  Jesus seems to be arguing that being a "son of the Most High" does not imply that one is THE Elohiym, and yet, in whatever sense the judges were sons of the most High, they were elohiym.   

In an article at Probe Ministries, after curiously arguing both that "gods" is meant ironically (i.e. "said in sarcasm" by God) and also meant as a meaningful confirmation of the judges' authority and "awesome responsibility," Jimmy Williams states:

Notice that in the dialogue in John [chapter] 10 . . . Jesus could have taken the "bait" and said, "I am Elohim!" But He doesn't. He claims identity with the second half of Psalm 82:6, the one that models a relationship to His Father exactly like what God is desiring from the judges in Psalm 82. Even though Christ is Elohim, He functions during the Incarnation in a de jure capacity to the Father and faithfully carries forth His responsibilities to His Father . . .*   

So Williams argues that even though Jesus is not only Messiah but the Elohim, Jesus still is not arguing here that He is Elohim but that He is the faithful Son, carrying out His Father's commission.

A self-described "prophetic ministry" site called 'His Word' has a somewhat snide article criticizing the "little gods" doctrine but stating fairly clearly:

The comparison of Himself with mere men, divinely commissioned, is intended to show . . . that the idea of a communication of the Divine Majesty to human nature was by no means foreign to the revelations of the Old Testament; . . .* 

Jesus' reference to Psalm 82, with the implicit comparison to "divinely commissioned" men, is intended to show something.  What is it intended to show?  That "the idea of a communication of the Divine Majesty to human nature was by no means" without precedent in the Tanakh (the Judaic holy scriptures). 

Now, these sources go on to argue that since "gods" is applied to mere men, it is only meant figuratively, and therefore is of no consequence to those who believe that we as children of God truly "partake of the divine nature."  But that would seem to imply that Jesus' argument only works if being the "Son of God," and everything else he has said about himself in relation to that, also amounts to a figure of speech.  If being called a child of the Most High, even if one is a man, does not imply that in some way something of the Most High's "Divine Majesty" is communicated to the one sanctified to the Most High's purpose, Jesus' argument is empty.

For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father,making Himself equal with God. [John 5:18]

One more thought on the whether we can trust the Judaean's perception of what Jesus was saying.  While Augustine said about this passage, ‘the Jews understand what the Arians fail to understand,’ his agenda was to prove trinitarian doctrine with this passage.  But Jesus argued elsewhere against accusations that he and his disciples broke the Sabbath law, and so John 5:18 seems to be speaking in terms of the Judaean leaders' perception of his conduct.