Theology in the Underworld

Hans Moscicke
  • 5.0 (3)
  • Christianity
  • Updated Biweekly

Welcome to Theology in the Underworld — where we explore the Bible’s hidden supernatural dimension. Dr. Hans Moscicke (PhD) examines the unseen realm, divine council worldview, fallen angels, the Book of Enoch, and Second Temple theology behind the New Testament. Serious scholarship. Ancient answers. Fresh insight. B.A. Moody Bible Institute • M.A. Wheaton College • Ph.D. Marquette University

  1. Sep 25

    No, Moses did not call human judges "elohim" | Ep. 23

    Does the Hebrew word "elohim" ever mean human judges? If it does, Psalm 82 can be read as God scolding Israelite magistrates—and the divine-council reading of the nations, Babel, and Genesis 6 loses a lot of ground. In this episode I walk the five arguments used to make elohim mean “judges” in the Covenant Code (Exodus 21–22) and show why none of them hold. *A plural verb with elohim is rare, but it is used of Yahweh, not of a human bench. Ha-elohim means the God of Israel or foreign gods—never magistrates. *Appealing to rabbinic interpretation is methodologically flawed. *Exodus 18 appoints judges and never calls them elohim. *Exodus 22:28 is God and a nasi, not a synonym pair. *And the slave rite in Exodus 21:6 is not the city gate: Deuteronomy 15 keeps the awl and drops ha-elohim. This is largely a guided tour of Michael Heiser’s case (Naked Bible Podcast #249 and his article on elohim with plural predication), with a few extra notes. If elohim never means judges, Psalm 82 stays what the parallel in Psalm 89 already says it is: a council in the skies. Listen first: Naked Bible Podcast 249, “Did Israelites View Their Judges as Gods?” Follow along on Instagram: @drhansbible If this helped, share it with someone still stuck on the KJV/NIV “judges” rendering of Exodus 22. If you enjoy the show please consider leaving a review. Chapters: 0:00 Hook: if elohim means judges, Genesis 6 follows 0:38 Can elohim mean human judges? 2:07 Thesis: it never does — and why that matters 5:23 Psalm 82, Babel, and Naked Bible 2498:42 Psalm 89: the council is in the skies 10:02 Exodus 22:7–9 — the battleground 12:20 Five arguments for the judges view 13:29 Argument 1: the plural verb 15:38 2 Samuel 7:23 and Joshua 24:19 18:35 Psalm 58, Genesis 20, Genesis 35 19:59 None of these plural predicates are judges 22:30 Ha-elohim: God or foreign gods — never magistrates 26:08 Argument 2: the rabbis after 70 CE 28:20 Argument 3: Exodus 18 never calls judges elohim 31:20 Argument 4: Exodus 22:28, LXX, Philo, Josephus 32:59 Acts 23:5 — Paul quotes only the nasi half 34:16 Argument 5: Exodus 21:6 36:11 Door ≠ gate 37:12 Deuteronomy 15 deletes ha-elohim 38:35 Ancestral elohim? Gordon and Heiser 41:08 Verdict and close

  2. Sep 12

    I'm sorry but the Divine Council is totally a THING in the Bible | Ep. 22

    Yahweh has a divine council in the Hebrew Bible. We move from the clear scenes to the disputed ones: Job, 1 Kings 22, Daniel, then Psalm 82 and the “let us” texts in Genesis. These beings are created. They are not co-equal with Yahweh. They are called sons of God — his heavenly household — and the Bible is not embarrassed by that language. Neighboring cultures had councils too. Israel’s looks different: no drunken feast that makes a king, no rival pantheon. Yahweh creates the host, the host worships him, and he alone carries out the decree. If you’ve read Heiser, this is the map with the texts in order. If you haven’t, this is an introduction that does not ask you to swallow Psalm 82 first. Follow on Instagram: @drhansbible If you listen on Apple or Spotify, a short review would help a ton. Cheers! PassagesNeh 9:6 · Ps 148:2–5 · Ps 33:6 · Job 38:7 · Ps 89:5–8 · Job 1–2 · 1 Kgs 22:19–23 · Dan 7:9–14 · Dan 4:13–17 · Isa 6 · Zech 3 · Ps 82 · Gen 1:26–27; 3:22; 11:7 · Deut 32:8 (DSS) Chapters: 0:00 Why we don’t start with Psalm 82 0:47 Intro: Theology in the Underworld 1:26 Five points: council, created beings, heavenly family, ANE, monotheism 9:49 Yahweh created the host — Nehemiah 9, Psalm 148, Psalm 33 13:16 When were they created? Job 38:7 17:50 Psalm 89: assembly of the holy ones in the skies 19:48 Job 1–2: the sons of God and the satan 22:08 1 Kings 22: the clearest council meeting 25:44 Daniel 7: thrones, court, books 28:21 Daniel 4: decree of the watchers 30:53 Isaiah 6: less clear, still a throne scene 33:33 Zechariah 3: Joshua, the satan, the Angel 35:37 Psalm 82: after the clear texts 42:42 Genesis 1, 3, and 11: “let us” 51:52 Two families: the sons of God texts 53:48 John Walton and ANE assemblies 1:06:44 Enuma Elish: convene the assembly 1:12:08 Mark Smith: Ugarit vs Israel 1:15:14 Wrap: incomparable Yahweh, created council

  3. Aug 28

    Who Was Og, King of Bashan? Rephaim, Hermon, and Cosmic Battle | Ep. 21

    Og of Bashan is the most famous giant in the Old Testament—and one of the most theologically loaded. In this episode we track him through the Hebrew Bible, Ugaritic texts, and Mesopotamian royal ideology, and ask why Israel’s memory of Og and Sihon left such a giant imprint on Israel's memory. Og is not a random tall Amorite. He is the remnant of the Rephaim, rules from Ashtaroth and Edrei, holds Mount Hermon, and sits in a web of underworld associations that later touch Molech, Gehenna, and the idea that the shades of the great dead persist. The Canaanite conquest was Yahweh’s war for a new Eden, not a land-grab footnote. We also look at Og’s iron bed and Marduk’s bed, the Ugaritic rapiu of Ashtaroth and Edrei, MLK / Malik / Nergal, and whether the spirit-world story line from Genesis 3 and 6 runs forward into Israel’s cult of the dead. CHAPTERS 0:00 Giants, Rephaim, and lingering spirits 0:44 Intro: why Og matters 4:27 Og and Sihon in Israel’s memory 6:51 Map: Bashan and the Transjordan 8:36 Psalms 135–136 and the exodus pairing 10:31 Psalm 68 and the mountain of Bashan 11:25 Yahweh’s battle (Deut 31) 13:09 New Eden, new humanity, occupied land 15:21 Was Sihon a giant? Amorites and Amos 2:9 18:31 What the text actually says about Og 31:31 Og’s bed and Marduk’s bed 33:51 Rapiu of Ashtaroth and Edrei 36:48 MLK, Malik, Nergal 38:25 Molech and the valley of Hinnom 43:19 Og, Hermon, and 1 Enoch 6 46:10 Summary 47:46 Jesus, Joshua, David, and the unfinished war Follow on Instagram: @drhansbible Scholarly articles referred in this video are available on request. Reach out: hansmoscicke@gmail.com #OgOfBashan #Rephaim #DivineCouncil #BiblicalTheology #Heiser #SecondTemple #Hermon #Molech

  4. Aug 12

    How Jesus became the Scapegoat/Goat for Azazel (Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology Part 3) | Ep. 20

    In the Barabbas episode, Matthew presents Jesus as the sacrificed goat of Yom Kippur. In the very next scene—the Roman soldiers’ mockery—he completes the typology by portraying Jesus as the scapegoat, the goat for Azazel who bears and carries away sin. We examine three key Matthean details: *The change from Mark’s purple robe to a scarlet cloak *The Second Temple tradition of the scarlet ribbon on the scapegoat’s head *Matthew’s unique language of placing the crown “on his head,” echoing Leviticus 16:21 *Matthew’s unique language of his "charge" or "guilt" placed "over his head" on the cross Along the way we look at ancient elimination rituals that help explain the cultural background, and we connect it all to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper about the “forgiveness (release) of sins.” This is classic Matthean typology: he doesn’t announce it—he shows it. Timestamps 0:00 Introduction 1:34 The two goats of Leviticus 16 4:18 Reading Matthew 27:27–31 6:38 Ancient elimination rituals 9:58 The scarlet cloak 12:57 Sins placed on the head 15:24 Crown of thorns 18:08 Guilt over Jesus’ head 19:44 Conclusion Instagram: @drhansbible If you follow this channel please consider leaving a review on Apple podcasts to help get this content to more people!

  5. Jul 31

    How "The Crowd" became the Lot of Azazel (Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology Part 2) | Ep. 19

    We continue unpacking Matthew’s sophisticated Day of Atonement typology in the Barabbas episode (Matthew 27). Previously we saw Jesus cast as the goat for Yahweh (the sacrificed goat) and Jesus Barabbas as the scapegoat released to the people. Now we turn to the remaining figures and motifs: Pilate as a parody high priest who transfers bloodguilt from his own hands onto the crowd with a verbal confessionThe crowd as a type of Azazel — the demonic wilderness figure who receives the scapegoat, inherits iniquity, and is linked to the desertThe motif of Jerusalem becoming a “wilderness” / desolate house (Matthew 23:38) after the temple’s destructionHow the people inherit not only Pilate’s transferred guilt but the righteous blood of previous generations (Matthew 23:35)70 AD as a purgative, atoning judgment that cleanses the land — one eschatological iteration of the Yom Kippur pattern We also explore Matthew’s broader theology of sin as something that must be purged and expelled, connections to 1 Enoch and other Second Temple Azazel traditions, echoes of Deuteronomy 27 curses, and how this typology ultimately points forward to Christ as the true sin-bearing scapegoat for those who repent. This is Part 2 of the Barabbas / Yom Kippur series. Stay tuned for the next episode where we focus more deeply on the christological side of the typology. If you’d like excerpts from my published academic work on this topic (A New Day of Atonement), just reach out. Follow on Instagram: @drhansbible Also available in podcast form—Spotify or Apple podcasts. TIMESTAMPS 0:00 – Opening: Wilderness, curse & inheriting iniquity 0:34 – Welcome & episode overview 1:14 – Recap: Barabbas as the scapegoat 1:53 – Main theme: Matthew’s theology of purgation 3:43 – Casting-away / elimination-of-sin motif in Matthew 6:46 – Review of the thesis & redaction criticism 9:28 – The Yom Kippur typology fundamentals 10:19 – The four figures (Jesus, Barabbas, Pilate, Crowd as Azazel) 15:28 – Recap of Motifs 1–4 17:02 – Introducing Motifs 5, 6 & 7 18:13 – Motif 5: Transferring sin with the hands 19:04 – Reading Matthew 27:24–26 19:45 – Reading Leviticus 16:20–22 20:43 – Pilate “washing off” bloodguilt 25:25 – Temple Scroll parallel 28:04 – Verbal confession & transfer of iniquity 29:13 – Catherine Sider Hamilton & innocent blood 30:36 – Numbers 35: Blood pollutes the land 32:59 – Jubilees 34: Day of Atonement & Joseph’s brothers 39:29 – Jubilees 5: Watchers, Flood & Day of Atonement 45:06 – 1 Enoch 9–10: Binding of Azazel 48:36 – Summary: Scapegoat bearing sins worthy of karet 52:31 – Deuteronomy 21 (heifer ritual) as possible parallel 58:16 – Summary of Motif 5 58:48 – Motif 6: Banishment & the wilderness 59:11 – Matthew 23:37–38 (“your children” & “house left desolate”) 1:01:47 – Scapegoat banished to the wilderness (erēmos) 1:03:14 – Matthew 22 (Wedding Feast) & Azazel typology 1:06:33 – Verbal echo of 1 Enoch 10 in the Wedding Feast 1:08:37 – Motif 7: Inheritance of iniquity & curse 1:09:06 – Why Matthew switches from “crowd” to “all the people” 1:11:54 – Echo of Deuteronomy 27 covenant curses 1:14:11 – Reading Matthew 23:32–36 (“fill up the measure… all the righteous blood”) 1:15:04 – 70 AD as purgation / cleansing of the land 1:17:51 – Bearing punishment as a scapegoat function 1:18:41 – Final synthesis: Pilate transfers bloodguilt 1:20:28 – Deuteronomy 27 & covenantal curses 1:24:13 – Summary: Five ways the crowd functions as Azazel 1:26:44 – Numbers 15 & 35 applied to the crowd 1:28:04 – Unpardonable sin & eschatological pattern 1:29:27 – Looking ahead: Christ as the true scapegoat 1:30:04 – Closing remarks #MatthewGospel #YomKippur #Barabbas #Azazel #DayOfAtonement #BiblicalTheology #SecondTempleJudaism

  6. Jul 14

    How Jesus & Barabbas became the Two Goats (Matthew’s Day of Atonement Typology Part 1) | Ep. 18

    In this episode of Theology in the Underworld, New Testament scholar Hans explores Matthew’s sophisticated Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) typology in the Barabbas episode (Matthew 27). Matthew deliberately casts: **Jesus the Messiah** as the goat for Yahweh — the sacrificed/immolated goat whose blood atones. **Barabbas** as the scapegoat (goat for Azazel) — released to the crowd. **Pilate** as a parody high priest who transfers guilt. **The crowd** as functioning like Azazel — receiving the scapegoat and inheriting sin. Drawing from Leviticus 16, Second Temple traditions, and his own doctoral research, Hans shows how Matthew weaves Yom Kippur imagery throughout the passion narrative to portray Jesus as fulfilling the entire ritual — both goats in one person. This is Part 1 of a multi-part series on Matthew’s Yom Kippur typology. ⏱️ TIMESTAMPS 00:00 – Intro & Yom Kippur Typology Teaser 00:24 – Welcome to Theology in the Underworld 03:30 – The Barabbas Episode (Matthew 27) 07:52 – Leviticus 16: The Two Goats Background 11:27 – Motif 1: Opposing Designation of the Two Goats 15:57 – Motif 2: Similarity of the Two Goats 18:36 – Motif 3: The Lottery Between the Goats 21:12 – Motif 4: Sending the Scapegoat to Azazel 25:45 – Theological Payoff & Dissertation Insights 28:23 – Reading Matthew 27:15–26 31:30 – Detailed Analysis: Opposing Designation 36:35 – Similarity of the Two Goats & Textual Variant (Jesus Barabbas) 47:31 – The Lottery Motif in Detail 50:07 – Pilate as a Mock High Priest 55:44 – Sending the Scapegoat to Azazel (Full Explanation) 59:27 – Barabbas as Penultimate Scapegoat 1:02:39 – Verbal Echo from Leviticus 16 (Septuagint) 1:04:30 – Summary of Matthew’s Yom Kippur Typology 1:06:07 – Final Remarks & Instagram 📖 Related: Hans’s academic monograph *The New Day of Atonement: A Matthean Typology* (Mohr Siebeck) If you enjoy deep dives into how the New Testament fulfills the Old, drop a comment: Which part of the typology surprised you most? Which character/role do you want to hear more about in Part 2? 👍 Like • 🛎️ Subscribe • 💬 Comment Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drhansbible/?hl=en Please consider leaving a review if you enjoy this podcast!

  7. May 14

    Cosmic Coup in God’s Council: How Genesis 3, Isaiah 14 & Ezekiel 28 Tell One Story | Ep. 17

    This high-ranking member of God’s divine council — a radiant, shining Elohim — became prideful and attempted to usurp the Most High. This is the Divine Rebel Triple Tradition: the same ancient story told in Genesis 3, Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28. In this episode of Theology in the Underworld, we trace how these three Old Testament passages draw from the same cosmic rebellion tradition — a once-glorious guardian cherub and shining one (the Nachash) who was cast down from the mountain of God. Following the groundbreaking work of Dr. Michael Heiser, we explore the divine council context, the semantic triad of the Nachash (serpent / diviner / shining one), the shining appearance of the rebel, his exalted status, his hubris, his humiliating downfall, and his eventual relegation to the underworld. We also connect this tradition to: • Daniel 10’s “princes” behind the nations • Isaiah 24’s cosmic geopolitics • Second Temple literature (Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Enoch, Life of Adam and Eve) • The Qumran War Scroll’s vision of Belial and his angels This isn’t a later Christian invention read back into the Old Testament — the canonical seeds are already here in the Hebrew Bible. 🎥 This is Part 4 in our Divine Rebel series. Watch the previous episodes on the Nachash in Genesis 3 and the Guardian Cherub in Ezekiel 28. TIMESTAMPS 00:00 – The Prideful Rebel in God’s Council 00:35 – Welcome & Series Recap 07:10 – The Divine Council Motif (Gen 3, Isa 14, Ezek 28) 11:22 – The Shining Appearance of the Rebel 15:52 – Exalted Status of the Divine Rebel 18:36 – Hubris & Disrupting God’s Order 21:12 – The Downfall of the Rebel 22:14 – Inhabitant of the Underworld 25:43 – Additional Motifs & Theological Payoff 27:10 – Second Temple & Qumran Development 31:04 – Channel Update (Season 1 & Upcoming Book) If you’ve been following this series, let me know in the comments: Does this chart and the Triple Tradition make the connection compelling for you? Which motif surprised you the most? 👍 Like • 🛎️ Subscribe • 💬 Comment your thoughts #divinerebel #nachash #ezekiel28 #isaiah14 #genesis3 #michaelheiser #divinecouncil #statn #satan #biblicaltheology #christology Christ is King. Cheers, everybody.

  8. May 5

    The Real Rebel in Ezekiel 28 Isn’t Adam—The Fallen Cherub Exposed (Part 2) | Ep. 16

    In the conclusion of this two-part series, we dig deeper into one of the most debated passages in the Old Testament: Does Ezekiel 28 describe a primordial human (Adam) or God’s anointed cherub — a divine cosmic rebel? I share my first serious encounter with this text under Greg Beale at Wheaton, why the Adam view fits neatly into certain theological systems, and why I ultimately landed on the cosmic rebel interpretation. We examine: •The Baal-Athtar myth and the striking parallels with Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 •Why the gemstones in Ezek 28 do not match the high priest’s breastplate •The shining, radiant imagery of the cherubim in Ezekiel 1 & 10 •How the rebel’s attributes (full of wisdom → filled with violence; cast to the ground before kings) fit the Nachash far better than Adam •The crucial distinction between human sin and cosmic hubris — and why it matters for how we understand evil This episode is about more than exegesis. It’s about recovering the Bible’s own category for supernatural evil that stands behind the worst of human pride and violence. If you haven’t watched Part 1 yet, start there first (episode 15). What do you think — is Ezekiel 28 ultimately about Adam or a divine rebel? Drop your thoughts below 👇 Chapters: 0:00 – Genesis 3 vs. Isaiah 14 & Ezekiel 28 (Human vs. Cosmic Hubris) 0:37 – Welcome & Series Intro (Part 2 of Ezekiel 28) 0:59 – Personal Story: My First Encounter with Ezekiel 28 under Greg Beale at Wheaton 2:25 – Why the Adam View Fits So Well in Reformed/Calvinist Theology (Total Depravity) 3:11 – What We Lose with the Adam Interpretation 5:41 – Quick Review of the Two Main Points from Part 1 (Masoretic Text & Isaiah 14 Consistency) 7:28 – Point 3: The Five Striking Parallels with the Baal-Athtar Myth 12:51 – Point 4: The Gemstones — Why They Don’t Point to the High Priest’s Breastplate 19:35 – The Shining Cherubim of Ezekiel 1 & 10 (Radiance, Stones of Fire, Sacred Space) 24:46 – Point 5: “Full of Wisdom” Then “Filled with Violence” — Fits the Nachash, Not Adam 26:27 – Point 6: “Cast to the Ground” and “Exposed Before Kings” — Again, Fits the Nachash Better 28:48 – Point 7: Strong Scholarly Precedent for the Cosmic Rebel View (Even Though It’s a Minority) 29:13 – Full Summary of All Seven Points 31:35 – Final Theological Payoff: Why This Distinction Between Human Sin and Cosmic Evil Matters 32:52 – Closing Thoughts#ezekiel #biblicaltheology #theology #divinecouncil #jesusisking #heiser #unseenrealm

See All (23)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

Welcome to Theology in the Underworld — where we explore the Bible’s hidden supernatural dimension. Dr. Hans Moscicke (PhD) examines the unseen realm, divine council worldview, fallen angels, the Book of Enoch, and Second Temple theology behind the New Testament. Serious scholarship. Ancient answers. Fresh insight. B.A. Moody Bible Institute • M.A. Wheaton College • Ph.D. Marquette University

Information

You Might Also Like