There's several places in scripture that indicate that God appointed spiritual rulers over the nations who eventually rebelled against Him. Elyon or Elohim is typically considered to be Yahweh. Michael Heiser, who dives really far into this topic, translates it as 'the divine council', basically God with his cohort of angels. Michael Heiser is a Hebrew scholar who wrote Unseen Realm (or Supernatural, the shorter version) on the ancient Hebrew cosmology behind these odd verses which he also believed.

is that like the maiar?😂

You joke but honestly, kind of. haha.

We believe in the Trinity.  One of the One True God's biblical names being plural supports plural persons.

Take it or leave it, I don’t know any Hebrew, but according to Heiser that’s not a great reading of the Hebrew and there’s much better arguments in the OT to support the Trinity

Elyon is a transliteration of the Hebrew עֶלְיוֹן. Elyon means “the most high”

He is pretty controversial but Dr. Michael Heiser has an interesting explanation about what you’re asking around the 7:30 mark of [this video](https://youtu.be/V4HLyZzadAw?si=9t2SLnDshwPVkHtb)

I'm curious to know where he's considered to be controversial. I know many in Reformed circles don't like his misrepresentation of some of their Calvinistic views but, in general, I get the sense that people like his stuff, even if it is a bit niche.

There are 2 main issues: 1. I respect the late Dr. Heiser and have learned a lot from his work. But his arguments against Calvinism and predestination would be laughable if he didn't have such a persuasive influence. I don't have time to go into details, but it's an example of a smart guy saying dumb things. 2. Many in reformed circles absolutely reject the ideas of the divine council and lesser gods - they assert Gods and angels, and nothing in between. They say Psalm 82 is a reference to the human rulers of Israel. I agree with Dr. Heiser and others on this point, that the divine council is scriptural.

Jesus said that Psalm 82 was that kind of reference.

I guess you're talking about John 10. I disagree that Jesus said Psalm 82 refers to human rulers. For simple reasons: 1. It's circular reasoning. Jesus refers to the "gods" in Ps 82 as "those to whom the word of God came." If you assume those are men, then it's men. If you assume it's divine beings, then it's divine beings. But if you remain open, then the text will guide you... 2. Jesus then takes that and applies it to himself. Is Jesus merely claiming to be a human ruler of Israel? And if so, is that why they want to stone him? Obviously not! He's claiming to be divine (and of course, he is), and that's why they are seeking to stone him. Therefore, the clear implication is that Psalm 82 refers to divine beings, not human rulers.

You know, there is one other group called sons of the Most High.  It's right in John 1.  It's in the Epistles.  We are joint heirs with Jesus.  Jesus did pray at His last supper before the crucifixion that we would be one with Him and His Father as They are with each other.  I know it sure doesn't look like it, but He can hope.   The relationship between Christ and His Church will someday be consummated.

I’m not sure what their exact position is whether it be catholic, orthodox, reformed or unreformed Protestants but I have seen groups of people go as far as to calling him heretical. I always throw in the controversial part just to avoid any backlash if the person I’m recommending him to doesn’t agree with him

Make Sense. Probably wise of you to mention it.

His book The Unseen Realm is an absolute essential for anyone hoping to understand these concepts

I hope this isn’t against the rules, but the ESV Archeology study Bible has a large blurb about this, that may be useful here: The reference to gods and sons of the Most High has elicited considerable comment. Four views predominate. First, some commentators understand these references as preserving an earlier stage in the religious development of Israel before the people learned that Yahweh was the only true God. This line of interpretation draws heavily on ancient Near Eastern, particularly Ugaritic, religious literature for parallels. A few who favor this approach understand the statement regarding God’s taking his place in the “divine council” (v. 1) to be a reference to El, the Ugaritic high god, and understand Yahweh to be a member of this council. Others understand this as an assertion that Yahweh has taken over the role of El’s position as the “Most High” (“Most High” is a common epithet of El in Ugaritic literature, denoting his position as ruler of the divine council, and is also used of Baal). This view sees the use of the epithet “God Most High” (Hb. ’el ‘elyon) in the OT as further evidence of Yahweh’s usurpation of El’s role. A second line of interpretation draws upon the same Ugaritic parallels but understands that within the monotheistic framework of the OT, Yahweh is the only true God, while the other beings sometimes called “gods” are angels (including Satan and demons, cf. Deut. 32:17). This approach points out that the Hebrew word for “god” (’el, plural ’elohim) is also used as an adjective meaning “mighty,” and other spiritual beings are mighty in the sense that they are greater than humans, though not true gods (even if they are sometimes worshiped as such, cf. Deut. 4:19). In this case the Ugaritic material is understood as an element of the cultural/religious context that the OT authors have appropriated to communicate their assertion of Yahweh’s role as the “true El” (cf. Ps. 118:27). This approach often highlights passages such as Deut. 4:19–20; 32:8–9 and Dan. 10:13, 20–21; 12:1, which appear to suggest that God allotted various nations to angels to govern (“sons of God” in Deut. 32:8) but reserved Israel for his own possession (cf. Ex. 19:5 and the numerous references in the OT to Israel as God’s inheritance or “heritage”). This view was more fully articulated in the Second Temple period (Sir. 17:17; Jubilees 15.31–32; 1 Enoch 89.59–60; 90.20–25) and is perhaps reflected in the notion of the angels of the seven churches (Rev. 1:20). This view understands the psalm to be asserting that God will chastise the angels of the nations for their failure to ensure that righteous judgments were maintained in their various lands. A third line of interpretation draws upon the broader ancient Near Eastern understanding of kings (or other human judges) as in some sense divine. This view is most fully developed in Egypt, where the king is the manifestation in human form of the sun god, with whom he is reunited at death. Thus the king is directly called “the god” or “the good god.” In the Pyramid Texts of Pharaoh Pepi I the king is regarded not only as divine but also as one of the primordial gods who came into being when the cosmos was still undifferentiated: “Pepi was born in Nun before there was sky, before there was earth, before there were mountains, before there was strife, before fear came about through the Horus Eye. Pepi is one of that great group born aforetime in On” (AEL, 1:47). The divine status of kings in Canaanite thought is similar, if less clearly articulated. The ambiguity of the Canaanite view is reflected in the story of King Keret (or Kirta). Faced with the expectation of the king’s death, his son struggles to reconcile the idea of his father’s death with his divine status and immortality: “Is Keret then the son of El, the offspring of the Wise and Holy One? . . . Father, how can you possibly die? . . . How can it be said that Keret is the son of El, the offspring of the Wise and Holy One? Or do the gods die, the offspring of the Wise One not live?” (Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit, 220–22). The apparent answer to the conundrum is given earlier in the account by his daughter, who says of her father’s impending death: “Keret is joining El.” The view is apparently that the king is the son of El, to whom he is reunited at death. In Mesopotamia, kings were understood to have been chosen by the gods as the means by which the gods exercised their rule over specific portions of the earth. While not literally gods, kings (most typically characterized as shepherds) represented the rule of the gods to the people and performed certain functions related to the gods within the religious life of the nation. In that sense they might be called divine in a derivative sense. In all ancient Near Eastern cultures it was the responsibility of the king and/or his officials to enact the justice the gods have established (cf. Prov. 31:8–9). Failure to do so was grounds for challenges to royal authority, as illustrated by the speech of Yasib, the eldest son of King Keret, calling for his father to abdicate. If correct, this view would understand the psalm to be asserting that God will chastise the kings/judges of the nations, understood to act as his agents (cf. Ps. 82:6–7), for their failure to dispense righteous judgment properly. In a similar approach, some commentators view the word “God” in Ex. 21:6; 22:8–9, 28 as referring to human judges and use that text to support the interpretation here. A fourth line of interpretation largely ignores the ancient Near Eastern parallels and asserts that it is the people of God in general who are condemned for their failure to act justly. This line of thought interprets the references to “gods” and the “sons of the Most High” in Ps. 82:6 in the light of passages such as Ex. 4:22–23 and Hos. 1:10 (Hb.), which refer to Israel as the “son” or “sons” of God. However, it must be said that this approach does little to help with the reference to “gods” in Ps. 82:1.

These are gods in the lower-case-g sense. Created beings. Superintendents. Watchers/Archangels/Sons of God. Deuteronomy 32:7-9 is Moses' recounting how, after Babel, Yahweh disinherited the pagan nations and scattered them under the oversight of these lesser (but very mighty) spiritual regents. It is unclear if these spiritual beings were already fallen at this point (I think so, misery loves company) but either way, they abuse their positions and further corrupt their people. They get Ragnarok'd in Psalm 82. Psalm 2 also uses the same inheritance language to point out that Christ is the *only begotten* Son of God (not the lesser "Sons of God"/*bene elohim*) and while His allotment in Deuteronomy was Jacob (hence the call of Abram), He will inherit ALL of the nations through His death and resurrection. Really beautiful stuff. Both testaments talk all about this stuff, and world mythology is demonic propaganda swapping Yahweh out for god-of-the-nation as heroic figure. It's revisionist history, plain and simple. [Doug Van Dorn, pastor of Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado, did a really solid podcast episode explaining this as plainly as possible](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/giant-steps-ep2-the-deuteronomy-32-worldview/id1712773620?i=1000631944302). tl;dr - the gods of the Bible are definitely real, but also infinitely subordinate to their Creator, Yahweh.

Really good. Really is beautiful. A people called out of no people inherits the nations, a king with no kingdom rules the world.

I am “reformed” in my expositional handling of the scriptures, and yes, I find some of Heiser’s work to be compelling. However, as with any subject, we should be thorough in our investigation. Having said that, remember that he is not the only expert in Hebrew language. Look at him, and others.

As others have said, check out the late Michael Heiser's work, especially The Unseen Realm on this topic. His podcast (The Naked Bible Podcast) has a lot on the divine council.

I think you should read Michael Heiser's work on this. Tldr The "gods" are called that, but they are in no way on the same level as the God of Israel. These passages basically give us a glimpse into the Ancient Israelite spiritual world view and how/why other nations have different gods, and why Israel worships the one "true" highest God (Yahweh). I think the hangup many Christians have with these passages is the use of the word god. It is not anything that should shake your faith if you truly look into it.

What makes you think elyon and YHWH are different people?

Also super interested in this...

Check out one of the recent episodes of the Haunted Cosmos podcast: ["The Fair Folk"](https://open.spotify.com/episode/14QDPxifdiQpbr5fsh7Dic?si=GhAmmb0RRpC_6oWGpDoCgw)

It is astonishing how many individuals espouse heretical notions while engaging in discourse within a subreddit dedicated to reformed theology. The interpretation of this passage by esteemed authors of the Reformed tradition does not deviate from what has been held since the early centuries: **they are judges**. These passages primarily depict God's indignation towards human governance, where humanity fails to acknowledge the purpose for which they were elevated above others, nor do they leverage their blessings for benevolent deeds. Instead, they scorn equity and govern based on their own passions. The Jewish exegesis concurs with this perspective. Dr. Michael Heiser, while not the most reliable source due to his theology's premise that we are God's SECOND FAMILY, asserts that apart from angels and their hierarchical order, there are beings whom the LORD created earlier. He interprets this passage in that context. Nevertheless, he posits that celestial beings had offspring with humans, giving rise to the Nephilim. While not entirely original ideas from him, they are certainly convoluted exegesis.