@Jimmy_Sellers In my opinion it means that God fixed the boundaries of the nations in such a way that Israel, once they came into existence, would have a land in which to thrive. John Gill, in his commentary, says as much. This is quite a rational line of thought to me.
the sense is, that such a country was measured out and bounded, as would be sufficient to hold the twelve tribes of Israel, when numerous, and their time was come to inhabit it; and which, in the mean while was put into the hands of Canaan and his eleven sons to possess; not as their proper inheritance, but as tenants at will, until the proper heirs existed, and were at an age, and of a sufficient number to inherit; in which may be observed the wise disposition of divine Providence, to put it into the hands of a people cursed of God, so that to take it from them at any time could not have the appearance of any injustice in it; and their enjoying it so long as they did was a mercy to them, for so long they had a reprieve: now here was an early instance of the goodness of God to Israel, that he should make such an early provision of the land flowing with milk and honey for them, even before they were in being, yea, before their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, existed; as early as the days of Noah; and yet, ungrateful as they were despised and set at nought his Son, the rock of salvation, when sent unto them: thus the heavenly inheritance, typified by the land of Canaan, was not only promised, but prepared, provided, secured, and reserved for the spiritual Israel of God, before the foundation of the world, from all eternity, and which is appointed according to their number; there is room enough in it for them all, though they are many; in it are many mansions for the many sons to be brought to glory.
The alternative view, of course, is Heiser’s interpretation that it was according to the number of the divine council. Hesier’s argument for the variant reading ‘sons of God’, as opposed to ‘sons of Israel’ in the Masoretic texts or ‘angels of God’ in the LXX, is possible. But I do not find it a better explanation than the plain interpretation given by Gill. The term ‘sons of God’ could also be taken as a reference to the Israelites or to the godly line of Seth - the godly people of the earth. The term itself does not automatically imply divine council. Also, where in the Bible does it indicate that God surrendered the rule of the nations to a divine council in plain terms? I do not think that it does - it requires a bit of extrapolation to arrive at that conclusion.
Psalms 22:28 - for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.
The Bible often indicates that God rules through other beings that do His will, but it does not anywhere plainly state that a divine council has been handed power over certain nations.
We do know there are other powers at work in the world for ill:
I John 5:19 - We know that we are of God, and the whole world is under the sway of the evil one.