My comments on this video:

Tyler Vela states:
“Is polemical language not a much easier resolve here than positing a realm of actually existing beings? Don’t Christians speak this way now – that God is greater than all the gods of Hinduism? Allah? The gods of money, sex, and power? Do we not often reify supposed gods to make the comparison relevant?”

I respond:
I think this is just a problem in language itself and Michael Heiser is unfamiliar with logic. We often refer to things that don’t exist as if they did. “Unicorns have a horn” seems to imply one actually exist. That’s just a feature of everyday talk.
He said there was a contradiction if we took the text showing monotheism literally. He hasn’t shown the fact we shouldn’t take them literally by any true exegesis. It also wouldn’t be a contradiction because the other text that he states never affirm that these others beings exist. He simply begs the question. I understand he has tried on other occasions. But from this, I’m not convinced.
We should also as you point out look at these text from their perspective as they have a polemical role.
The issue is that he creates a hierarchy of being in which these lesser beings that were created are just 1 floor under Yahweh. It undermines both the incomprehensibility of God and the creature-creator distinction. In which we and God are on the same plane of being and is kinda like a Neo-platonic understanding.