Psalm 82:6 (NET) — I thought, ‘You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.’

John 10:34 ‘Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), 10:36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?’

Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) summarises the force of the original context in Psa 82:

‘God is addressing judges and administrators who have been chosen to serve as His representatives in teaching and enforcing His holy law. To be sure, some of these solemnly commissioned judges exercised their office unjustly and showed partiality to the rich, even though they were in the wrong (v.2). Essentially the psalm expresses a condemnation of these unjust jurists, saying, in effect, “Although you have the status of membership in the family of God, and although you have been called after His name, nevertheless because of your unfaithfulness to sacred duty you will die like other men and will fall to ruin like one of the princes of the unsaved world.”‘

To whom does this refer?

(a) Some think that this psalm countenances the reality of other gods (see, for example, John Loftus’ comment in God or Godless, p22f).  This would then be a concession to polytheism.

A variation of this view is adopted by Mays, in his commentary.  He suggests that the psalmist is dealing, in a vividly poetic way, with the worldview that was prevalent in the ANE, in which the gods were thought to meet in an assembly [cf. v1] under the presidency of a leading deity.  Clearly, within this picture, the Lord is the supreme deity.  The other gods are subordinate deities, responsible for order and justice in the nations to which they have been assigned.  They have failed in this task.  So they will be removed from office and condemned to die, just like men.  In this way, says Mays, this psalm ‘announces the death of the gods. It is a way of saying in the face of a polytheistic worldview, “I believe in God the Father Almighty.”‘

Heiser offers a further variation on the theme.  He says that terms such as ‘monotheism’, ‘polytheism’, ‘henotheism’ and ‘monolatry’ are all of limited usefulness, because they import modern understandings into ancients texts that should be allowed to speak for themselves.  Moreover, they lend themselves to an evolutionary approach (where Israel’s faith is thought to have progressed polytheism or henotheism to monotheism).  Those who reject an evolutionary approach, says Heiser, tend to view the ‘other gods’ as either human beings or idols.  But when the biblical texts are allowed to speak for themselves, we find that they assume the existence of other gods, but uniformly assert that Yahweh is unique among them.  Put simply, to the biblical writer Yahweh was a god, but no other god was Yahweh.  He was the only eternal and uncreated being, and all other beings – including the hosts of heaven – owe their existence to him (Ps 148:1–5; Isa 43:10; 44:6–8; Neh 9:6).  He alone is worthy of worship, being unique in his nature (uncreated), and supreme in his power.

(b) Others think that the reference is to angels.  The OT occasionally refers to angelic beings as ‘gods’ or ‘sons of God’ (Psa 8:5; Job 1:6).  J. Stafford Wright thinks that this passage is about the judgement of angelic rulers, who have abused their authority.  What is said in v5f ‘would be meaningless if they were already men and princes.’ Wright adds that

‘this interpretation is not negatived by Christ’s quotation of v6 in Jn 10:34-36, since he interprets the vierse as applying to those “unto whom the word of God came,” i.e. those who are called to account by God in this Psalm; leaving the question open as to whether they are men or angels.  Christ’s argument of course is that if the title “elohim” is applied in Scripture even to evil beings who exercise authority under god, the title “Son of God” in its fullest sense can be assumed by him without blasphemy when his divine mission is unique, and his works declare that he is what he claims to be.’ (What is man?)

(c) In Eastern Orthodox thinking, this text is understood in terms of ‘deification’.  According to the Orthodox Study Bible:

‘People who receive God’s grace in faith will partake of His divine nature (2 Pet 1:4) and can rightly be called gods. Christ is effectively saying, “If those who have received this honor by grace are not guilty for calling themselves gods, how can He who has this by nature deserve to be rebuked?” (JohnChr).’

(d) According to Carson, this probably refers to the people of Israel at the time they were given the law. They were the people ‘to whom the word of God came’ (v35).

Kruse agrees that

‘the statement ‘You are gods’ was understood in later rabbinic exegesis to be God’s word to the Israelites at Sinai when they received the law. God said to them, ‘You are gods,’ because in receiving the law and living by it they would be holy and live like gods. But because they departed from the law and worshipped the golden calf while still at Sinai, he said to them, ‘you will die like mere men’.’

In Hard Sayings of the Bible:

‘In John 10:34, when accused of blasphemy, our Lord appealed to Psalm 82:6 by saying, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are Gods’?” In so doing, Jesus was demonstrating that the title could be attached to certain men “to whom the word of God came” (Jn 10:35), and therefore there could not be any prima facie objections lodged against his claim to be divine. There was a legitimate attachment of the word to those people who had been specially prepared by God to administer his law and word to the people.’

(e) Still others think that this psalm is referring to human judges, in their God-given capacity for ruling.  The contributor to Hard Sayings of the Bible says that God ‘is addressing the earthly judges and administrators of his law whom he has set up to represent him.’  The same word ‘elohim‘ is used in Ex 21:6 and Ex 22:8 (and probably also in Psa 138:1).  This understanding of the “gods” as human rulers who are abusing their God-given authority is borne out by v2, and also by Psa 82:6, where all those who are ‘sons of the Most High’ are called ‘gods’.

Mitch Chase adopts this view.  Other candidates (such as angels) could scarcely be rebuked for unjust judgments (v2), or for failing to act justly in defence of the weak and vulnerable (v3).  Nor do they die as men die (v7).  No: the ‘gods’ of this psalm are unjust human judges.  They are ‘gods’ in that they have a (derived) godlike authority.  This interpretation is supported by Jesus’ quotation of this psalm in Jn 10:34-36, where Jesus applies the term ‘gods’ to his human listeners.

These judges are called ‘gods’, because they:

‘stand in the place of God to judge His people. Being His representatives, they possess delegated authority to speak on His behalf. In Ps 82:7 these gods/judges are said to face death because of their unjust verdicts, showing conclusively that they are human and not divine beings. The word translated “gods” (elohim) in Ps 82:6 is translated “judges” in Ex 21:6 and 22:8.’ (Apologetics Study Bible)

According to Murray Harris (Navigating Tough Texts, Vol II), Jesus probably understood them to be:

‘unscrupulous human magistrates and judges of Israel who are appointed to rule (82:7b) over God’s people as “sons of the Most High” (82:6b).’

Harris gives the following reasons for this interpretaton:

(1) the “gods” need to be humans for his response to an objection about “a mere man” (John 10:33) to be valid;

(2) it is unlikely that the whole nation of Israel was in any sense “sons of the Most High”; and

(3) Israelite judges were expected to adjudicate on the basis of “the word of God” (John 10:35).

(Paragraphing added)

But what is force of our Lord’s argument here?

We should set aside cultish beliefs that all humans are divine.

Carson notes that

‘This Scripture proves that the word ‘god’ is legitimately used to refer to others than God himself. If there are others whom God (the author of Scripture) can address as ‘god’ and ‘sons of the Most High’ (i.e. sons of God), on what biblical basis should anyone object when Jesus says, I am God’s Son?’

In short, our Lord is using an ad hominem argument: he turned on the crowd and said, ‘Why do you call me a blasphemer simply because I call myself “God”? Your own Bible, which cannot be broken, calls your elders “gods”. It isn’t necessarily wrong, then, for a man to be called “God”.’

In other words, our Lord is not attempting a full defense of his own divinity at this point, but rather to demonstrate a fatal weakness in his opponents’ position.

Jesus’ logic is, according to Harris:

‘“If God the Father himself refers to mere human beings as ‘gods,’ how can you object to my claim as a human being ‘to be God’ as you express it [John 10:33], or to be ‘God’s Son’ or ‘his very own’ as I express it [John 10:36]”? The argument progresses “from the lesser to the greater” (a minori ad maius).’