Gods, Demons, or Angels? Who are the divine beings who rival Yahweh?
You may or may not be aware of the recent debate between some classically Reformed voices and some of the more ‘fringe’ or DCW (Divine Council Worldview) voices regarding how we should speak about spiritual beings described in Scripture. The debate seems esoteric to many, but to others it's a significant argument as it touches on fundamental questions in orthodox Christianity about biblical interpretation and the nature of God. More importantly, this is a conversation where both sides share far more common ground than the dogmatic exchanges suggest.
Most people will recognize the reality of spiritual beings who possess, or once possessed, authority over the nations (Deuteronomy 32:8–9, Daniel 10:20), or, as it is called, the Divine Council (Psalm 82:1, Psalm 89:5–7, Job 1:6). The primary disagreement is about what we should call the beings, the definitions and implications of those titles, and how we should describe their nature, particularly in relation to Yahweh, the God of the Bible (cf. Psalm 97:9).
The Old Testament word at the heart of this debate is elohim. While passages like Deuteronomy 6:4 seem to advocate strict monotheism, “Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one,” the biblical theology gives us a much broader and diverse look at the spirit world. The term elohim frequently designates the God of Israel and Creator of the universe (ex., Genesis 1:1). Still, it is also used for members of a council of divine beings who serve as judges over various nations (cf. Psalm 82) and, at times, for other spirit beings (1 Samuel 28:13).
For example, Psalm 82:1 uses elohim twice in the same verse. The first use is in the singular, referring to the God of Israel, “God has taken his place in the divine council.” The second use is plural, “in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.” Notice, the singular elohim presides over an assembly of elohim. These elohim or “other gods” are clearly not presented in the text as empty idols. Scripture, rather, describes them as demons (or lower-ranking divine beings; ex., Deuteronomy 32:17), the heavenly host (1 Kings 22:19), or sons of God assembled in Yahweh’s presence (Job 1:6).
Interestingly, the Septuagint preserves this perspective using plural forms of theos (god) or angeloi (angels) when translating Hebrew terms for gods or heavenly beings (ex., “Worship him, all his angels,” LXX 96:7, cf. “worship him, all you gods,” Psalm 97:7, ESV). The broad usage of the term is further illustrated in 1 Kings 11:33, where foreign deities such as Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom are referred to as elohim, suggesting that the term is not inherently tied to a specific set of attributes, neither does it imply a unique ontology.
Ultimately, the semantic range of elohim is extensive, compared to the way the term “God” is typically employed in contemporary English, as it can refer to members of a divine council, idols of foreign nations, or, in some ways of thinking, metaphorically of powerful human rulers.
Two “Camps”
The Divine Council Worldview Position:
I hosted a poll in the Divine Council Worldview Facebook group, which the Michael Heiser Foundation operates. I asked for a strict choice between referring to the nations’ gods as “gods” or “so-called gods,” the latter based on Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. The participants unsurprisingly favored the term “gods,” though many other options were provided in the comment section (many of which were more problematic and none of which come without a certain amount of semantic baggage).
(Results reflect 180 responses at the time this poll was captured.
Largely, the proponents of the ‘gods’ view emphasized using biblical language directly, suggesting the use of “gods” (lowercase), elohim, or simply, “divine beings.” They leaned heavily on the worldview presented in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32:8, emphasizing that calling these beings “gods” does not make them rivals to Yahweh. For many, faithfulness to Scripture means preserving its original vocabulary, even when that vocabulary feels uncomfortable to modern ears.
Fundamentally, those in the DCW camp are concerned about faithfulness to the biblical text and avoiding a flattening of supernatural language. Honoring the Deuteronomy 32/Psalm 82 worldview requires maintaining the vocabulary those texts actually use. To replace “gods” with more sanitized terms is to domesticate Scripture, to make it more palatable to modern hearers at the cost of its actual content.
The Classical Reformed Position:
This camp expresses concern that “gods” in English is misleading to contemporary audiences. They prefer terms like “angels,” “spiritual beings,” “rulers,” and “authorities.” Their primary concern is linguistic drift toward what listeners might perceive as polytheism—or perhaps, actual polytheism. They argue that while the Hebrew term elohim has a certain semantic range, the English word “god” is so ontologically loaded that it inevitably communicates something the biblical authors never intended. That is to say, regardless of the range of meaning possible, when someone says they worship this god or that god, they are taken to mean they reject one conception of God and accept another as the ‘real god.’ Therefore, referring to the gods of the nations as gods suggests to many an ontological status on par with that of Yahweh, the God of the Bible (a concern absent in the ANE usage of elohim in the Hebrew narrative).
These theologians also recognize that “God” in English carries enormous cultural baggage. They fear that a historical understanding of the terminology will lead laypeople to wrongly equate “gods” with rival deities, causing genuine confusion about Christian monotheism. As far as I can tell, their desire to maintain classical Christian categories isn’t born of theological superiority but comes from pastoral concern. Imprecise language in English, even if it mirrors Hebrew vocabulary, will lead the church away from orthodoxy rather than toward it. And of course, we see the same pastoral concern in the way the Apostle Paul approaches this topic in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.
Orthodoxy in Both Camps
Despite the weight many feel because of this debate, both sides (can) affirm many of the same fundamental truths:
There is one true God, Yahweh, Creator of all (Isaiah 44:6)
All other spiritual beings are created, finite, and subordinate (Psalm 148:2, 5)
No other being shares God’s essence or divine being (Isaiah 40:25)
Christ is supreme over all powers (Colossians 2:15; Ephesians 1:20–23)
The biblical supernatural worldview is real and meaningful (Ephesians 6:12)
As I understand the debate, most in the DCW camp are not teaching technical polytheism. No one in this debate affirms rival deities with an equal ontological nature as Yahweh. Or as I’ve often put it, no orthodox Christian affirms the possibility that rival gods can dethrone Yahweh due to the categorical distinction between creature and creator—that is, whoever these gods are, they are creature, not creator. There are semantic concerns, absolutely. And our choice of terminology is important, but regarding the doctrine of God itself, the differences here need not be a matter of compromising historical Christian orthodoxy.
Six Principles to Guide Discussion
I don’t fully align with either side of this argument, nor do I sense a need to separate from either camp—I consider myself a Reformed Baptist and subscribe to a DCW. That said, after considering both positions, I offer six principles to continue the discussion with concern for both biblical fidelity and pastoral wisdom. None of these principles is intended to end any debate, but to inform it.
First: The Bible Uses Multiple Categories
Scripture itself doesn’t restrict us to a narrow vocabulary, particularly when it comes to the mysterious. Among others, the Old Testament employs the terms elohim (gods, Psalm 82:1), “sons of God” (Job 1:6), and “holy ones” (Psalm 89:7). And the New Testament uses theoi (gods, Acts 14:11), daimonia (demons, 1 Corinthians 10:20), “rulers” (Ephesians 6:12), and “authorities” (Colossians 1:16). All of these terms have a great deal of crossover. Still, the biblical authors use them carefully in their appropriate contexts. I believe the diversity reflects both the difficulty posed by the constraints of these beings and a shifting meaning as Hebrew moves to Greek and then to modern English, not to mention thousands of years of linguistic development. It’s very modern to insist upon a one-size-fits-all term for the elohim, yet this impulse is foreign to the ancient world. We should, rather, expect our terminology to require the same level of flexibility as the original terms.
Second: ‘Gods’ is Biblical but Semantically Difficult in English
Hebrew elohim does not equal English “god.” In contemporary English, using the term “god” for another deity almost always is done in the context of ontological rivalry, such as the defence of Allah over Yahweh. In modern parlance, ‘gods’ are beings in competition with the true God of the Bible. Even when engaging polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism, to propagate the Vishnu-Brahma creation myth would communicate, not merely a shifting of allegiance to the Hindu gods, but the rejection of the reality of Yahweh entirely. Again, notice the difference. In the ANE context, there are many elohim, and yet, the Hebrews affirmed Yahweh as unique and chief among them. True polytheism recognizes many gods, even if the individual worships only one or some. But in the contemporary context, saying there are other gods is seen as an outright rejection of Yahweh.
You might argue, “But that’s not what I mean!” and fair enough. Yet this is still what other people will hear. Biblical writers did not intend ontological rivalry when they used elohim to refer to subordinate divine beings. Therefore, biblical accuracy and pastoral clarity must work together to bring nuance to the way we speak of biblical gods. To refer to them simply as gods is to create confusion based on modern parlance. On the one hand, accuracy (gods) without clarity (elohim) is confusing; on the other hand, clarity (spiritual beings) without accuracy (gods) can distort meaning.
That said, I don’t think everyone needs to agree on a set term. But we must be careful to define our terms and understand them in context, according to their intended usage. That is to say, those in the ‘gods’ camp should seek to understand what those in the other camp mean when they say ‘so-called gods’ (or another term), and vice versa, before meaningful discussion can progress. And we should all be careful to define our terms when discussing sensitive ideological differences such as this.
Third: Scripture Itself Calls These Beings Demons
Moses, Asaph, and Paul openly refer to these entities as demons. Deuteronomy 32:17 explicitly identifies the gods of the nations as demons. Psalm 82 depicts divine sons who fall into corruption. First Corinthians 10:20 warns that pagan sacrifices are offered to demons, not to God. In biblical usage, “demon” is not primarily a species designation but an allegiance category. This term effectively highlights both their rebellion and their subordination. It’s a term that, I think, could potentially help further discussion as a middle ground.
My primary concern here is that the Greek word translated “demon,” daimonion, doesn’t always refer to a rebellious or fallen spirit in the biblical sense. In Greek literature, it can mean a lesser god, a divine being, a spirit, or even an inner voice (like shoulder angels). It can also be a comprehensive term for any spiritual being, not unlike elohim in Hebrew, and perhaps it is the better translational equivalent, except for one instance. Daimonion and Theos can both be used to describe the gods of the Pantheon, for example—gods proper. But only daimonion naturally can refer to lesser spirits. And in a biblical context, it never seems to be appropriate as a designation for Yahweh, God.
Further, contemporary parlance ascribes fallenness to the demons, whereas the word’s usage in the Ancient Greek society does not. However, the Scriptures tend to differentiate between demons and holy ones, so perhaps within the Scriptures, the term can still be useful.
And a final caution is that “demons” is used in two related but separate categories in biblical studies. It can refer to fallen angels, such as those who rebelled, leaving heaven, in Genesis 6:1-5. But it can also refer to the disembodied spirits of giants or rephaim, particularly in Hebrew folklore (ex., 1 Enoch). Therefore, the use of the word demon (daimonion) to describe the gods of the nations still needs clarification—such is the nature of biblical studies, nearly two millennia after the texts of scripture were written.
Fourth: Paul’s “So-Called Gods” may Yet Provide Insight
In 1 Corinthians 8:5, Paul uses the phrase “so-called gods.” This is a bit of an unfortunate translation. Paul is not dismissing these beings as fake or non-existent, as the English rendering may suggest. Instead, he’s acknowledging that they are ‘gods, as the nations call them,’ while maintaining the crucial hierarchy that distinguishes them from the one true God. I’ve suggested understanding these beings as “gods, or so they are called [by the nations].” Notice that Paul acknowledges their status as gods from the perspective of the nations, without conflating the gods with Yahweh. And therefore, he can call them demons just two chapters later. Perhaps this is why many in the DCW space said they preferred to refer to these beings as the ‘gods of the nations,’ a term used in many places in the Scriptures (ex., Psalm 96:5). This rhetorical strategy helps modern listeners avoid the ontological category error that English “god” tends to create, while remaining faithful to Paul’s rhetorical approach.
Fifth: Christ Dethrones These Beings
No matter how you choose to read this issue, all should agree that fundamental to the Gospel is that Christ exposes, judges, and triumphs over these beings (Matthew 28:18, Colossians 2:15; Ephesians 1:20-22). The language we use should reflect these three realities: their genuine existence, their subordination to God as created beings (noting the creator-creature distinction), and their defeat by Christ’s authority (Revelation 12). Any terminology that obscures any one of these three truths fails to capture the complete biblical picture and requires further definition to avoid abstraction or misunderstanding.
I am frequently asked whether the gods of the nations still have authority over the nations today. There’s a lot of subtext to that question. Often, people want to know whether they should be concerned that a demon rules over the nations that our own nation's enemies represent. Not infrequently, people are worried that a demon rules over the United States and/or other Western nations. In either account, the answer may be yes, as people must willfully submit to demons. But they have been dethroned and no longer have the official authority to rule. Yet for Christians, we have forsaken all to follow King Jesus—and this is crucial to maintain in this discussion.
Sixth: No Single English Term Carries the Whole Semantic Load
This will be my point on graciousness and may be the most crucial principle of the six. Calling the beings “gods” is biblical, but it is confusing to many. “Demons” is biblical but requires careful definition. “Elohim” is accurate within the Hebrew context, but foreign and awkward. “Spiritual beings” is clear enough, but too generic. Unfortunately, none of us has the influence to reshape vocabulary or retrain the rhetoric of modern society, so we cannot simply invent a new standard. Still, our vocabulary must align with the context and purpose of the situation in which the beings are being addressed. For this reason, we may be forced to employ a diverse set of terms and be prepared with coherent explanations for the terms given in context. That is to say, what works in a seminary classroom may not work in a sermon or a Facebook post. And what serves academic precision may not serve pastoral edification. Further, what one may use in a particular Christian context may not suit another context, whether due to a denominational difference or a setting, such as a podcast, YouTube video, or something else entirely. We do well to be sensitive to these differences before we criticize others for not articulating doctrine according to our own context and standards.
Conclusion
Our goal should be unity without flattening biblical categories. Perhaps nothing I’ve said in this article is helpful or practical, but I hope it at least raises awareness of the need for grace in this conversation. We must approach terminology through context, clarity, humility, and love for our brothers and sisters in Christ. We must pursue Christian unity through Christian charity. And above all, the unity of the church and the clarity of our witness depend on shared commitment to biblical truth, theological conviction, and pastoral love.
