The episode is now live!
In Episode 139 of the Naked Bible Podcast, Dr. Michael Heiser responds to a range of listener-submitted theological questions that dive deep into biblical interpretation, supernatural worldview, and ancient context. This Q&A installment touches on key themes foundational to Heiser’s scholarship, offering listeners text-based arguments and interpretive models grounded in biblical Hebrew, Second Temple cosmology, and divine council theology.
The episode begins with a discussion on the Noahic flood account, where Heiser unpacks how Genesis 10 provides the contextual boundaries for interpreting Genesis 6–8, offering a compelling textual argument for a regional rather than global flood—without relying on science. He illustrates how Hebrew phrases like “kol ha’eretz” (“all the earth”) and “kol basar” (“all flesh”) do not always imply exhaustive totality, challenging rigid literalist readings and reframing the narrative through ANE worldview assumptions.
He then addresses the troubling verse in Psalm 137:9, clarifying the nature of imprecatory psalms as covenant-based appeals for divine justice rather than endorsements of violence. Through a covenantal lens rooted in Genesis 12:1–3, Heiser explains that such prayers give voice to suffering while leaving justice in God's hands.
Listeners are then taken into a nuanced discussion of Matthew’s genealogy and the women included in Jesus’ lineage—specifically Bathsheba, who appears under the name Bath-shua in 1 Chronicles 3:5. Heiser links these women thematically to sexual transgression and argues they intentionally telegraph the Watcher rebellion of Genesis 6, a motif he elaborates on in his book Reversing Hermon. This analysis highlights the messianic reversal of supernatural evil and sets the stage for understanding the Messiah's role in undoing the effects of primeval rebellion.
The conversation moves to Isaiah 34 and Matthew 24, where fig leaves and falling stars are used metaphorically to describe divine judgment and cosmic upheaval. Heiser correlates these passages with divine beings, judgment of the nations, and the Day of the Lord, drawing from both Old and New Testament eschatology. This “already but not yet” theological framework provides a middle ground between full Preterism and futurism.
Later, Heiser responds to the question of Jesus' cry of abandonment on the cross—“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”—offering insight into Jesus’ human experience of despair without denying his deity. Drawing from Raymond Brown's Death of the Messiah, Heiser affirms the legitimacy of Jesus’ anguish while emphasizing that trust remains, even in suffering.
Finally, the episode closes with a clarification of Romans 13:1 and its reference to “authorities.” Heiser explains why this passage refers to human governing authorities, not divine beings, and why the theological and textual context supports this reading over interpretations that link it to spiritual principalities like those in Ephesians 6:12.
Whether you're new to the Naked Bible Podcast or a long-time listener, this Q&A delivers Heiser’s trademark blend of philological precision, supernatural worldview, and biblical theology rooted in ancient context. A must-listen for anyone seeking to read Scripture with ancient eyes and theological depth.
Timestamps & Questions
| Timestamp | Question Summary |
|---|---|
| 5:00 | Does the flood account in Genesis reflect ANE cosmology and support a local flood view? |
| 20:00 | Why is Psalm 137:9’s violent language considered a "blessing"? |
| 26:00 | Is there symbolic or theological significance in Bathsheba being called “Bath-shua”? |
| 40:00 | Do fig leaves in Isaiah 34 and Matthew 24 symbolically refer to divine beings? |
| 50:00 | Why did Jesus cry "My God, why have you forsaken me?" if he knew his mission? |
| 55:00 | Does “authorities” (exousia) in Romans 13 refer to spiritual beings? |
Best Q&A since Q&A #8! Hat’s off to the questioners!
Do you believe it is necessary that the flood covered the entire “known” world of Genesis 10? Or is it possible it only covered the known world at the time of Noah (which may have been much smaller)?
Because the phrases used in Gen 6-8 (“all the earth”; “the whole earth”; “the whole heaven”; “all flesh”: etc.) are used elsewhere in contexts that cannot be exhaustive, and can be quite particular or generic in expression, I don’t feel it is necessary to have every last inch (or mile) of the known land masses to be submerged. I gave some examples of these phrases in either the last Q & A on the podcast or the one before.
Dr. Heiser, what is your take on the “Adam and Eve were clothed in garments of light”, as taught by Doug Hamp?
I’m not familiar with it, but I can’t think of any exegetical basis for such an idea.
Dr. Heiser what is your take on the origin of Neanderthals and is there another identity for them? Also, how is it possible for two species of Man to exist in parallel?
If it is true that Neanderthals and homo sapiens interbred (and the genetic record seems to say that, though there’s still some dispute I think), then Neanderthals are also human (just not homo sapien). Chimpanzees are an analogy (from Wikipedia — hey, it’s useful on occasion):
[Chimpanzees] were once considered to be one species, however, since 1928, they have been recognized as two distinct species: the common chimpanzee (P. troglodytes) who live north of the Congo River, and the bonobo (P. paniscus) who live south of it.[2] In addition, P. troglodytes is divided into four subspecies, while P. paniscus has none. Based on genome sequencing, the two extant Pan species diverged around one million years ago. The most obvious differences are that chimpanzees are somewhat larger, more aggressive and male-dominated, while the bonobos are more gracile, peaceful, and female-dominated.
Two species, both chimpanzees. Two species, both human.
While I’ve blogged before (and said on many occasions) that I don’t think the Bible was intended (by God) to teach science, there are passages that can be read (rightly or wrongly?) as suggesting there were other humans around that aren’t from Adam (i.e., this is speculative, as it is based only on the fact that their presence is never traced in the text to Adam and Eve — it’s silent). For example, Gen 4:16-17 –
16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
Cain goes to Nod and gets married. Where does his wife come from? Sure, you can say lots of time elapsed (we aren’t given a chronology), so a sister born from Adam and Eve at some point wound up in Nod and married Cain. But you could also say she was just there already. More important is the line about Cain building a city. You don’t build cities by yourself and there weren’t any robots to help, either. You need LOTS of people to do that (division of labor and furnishing of resources).
Ultimately, I don’t know that I’d call this a “position” of mine. I’m just making observations. But since I don’t believe God chose people who had no knowledge of modern science or places beyond the nations listed in Gen 10 (there are no places in the Bible mentioned that aren’t situated in the geographical regions covered by Gen 10), I don’t feel like I have to make the Bible address the issue.
It is supposed by some that there are two creation events described in Genesis. One would be in chapter one, while a completely different event is described in chapter two. May I ask, what is your take on this topic?
While I don’t embrace JEDP (the documentary hypothesis), I wouldn’t be bothered if Gen 1-2 came from two hands or sources. We have four gospels, so why should we care about two creation stories?
I’ve said before that I think Gen 1-11 was either composed or edited during the exile, due to its heavy Mesopotamian polemic bent. While Moses could have read Akkadian (it was the language of international correspondence, as the Amarna letters show), it’s another question as to whether he’d have access to Mesopotamian literary epics, and those are the fodder for some things in Gen 11. Gen 1 would be the one that followed this orientation. Gen 2 clearly does not and creates some internal tensions with Gen 1 (e.g., compare Gen 1:11-12 with Gen 2:5-9. Yes, scholars have invented ways to harmonize them, but if that just reinforces the point — if the same author had written them we wouldn’t need harmonization (cf. the situation with the gospels).
Evangelicals typically balk at this because they are taught the phrase “law of Moses” must mean Moses wrote every word of the Torah (some at least allow Deut 34 to be an exception — the death of Moses). “Law of Moses” is a simple construct phrase in Hebrew. Such phrases have a semantic range. While the phrase could mean “the law (Torah) produced by / written by Moses,” it could also mean “the law associated with Moses,: or “the law with respect to Moses” (i.e., THAT law and not another one). It matters not that Jesus or anyone else uses the name of Moses when citing the Torah. It doesn’t mean Moses has to be the author. Jesus refers to Samuel’s words, but the books of Samuel nowhere claim Samuel is the author. Same for Daniel. We know that the prophetic books (Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.) show evidence of editing (e.g., switches between first and third person – see Ezek 1:1-3). But someone can still cite the book as “Ezekiel said.” We do this today with biblical books (like 1-2 Samuel, Job, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Joshua) when we have no idea who wrote them. Many OT books have no specified author, so they get referred to (and named by tradition) by the figure with whom they are most associated. There’s no reason we can’t view the Torah the same way.
I don’t see any reason to define what a “kind” is based on reproductive compatibility. Donkeys and horses are radically different and can still produce a mule, lions and tigers similarly can produce ligers and tigons, false killer whales can produce hybrid offspring with bottlenose dolphins. I don’t see a problem with God creating Neanderthals and Humans distinctly, and yet using a similar enough body-plan to allow interbreeding.
As for Genesis 10, even if you interpret it that way I don’t think that really helps. Seeing as Cush and Put are referred too, those people groups are more genetically distinct from say, elamites or those in spain, than anyone else on earth is from one another. So if that much genetic diversity came from Adam and Eve, all modern humans would be in that same group. And given that Genesis 10 really is the entire known world to them, I think it would be pretty reasonable to say that the intent of Genesis 10 & 11 is that all humanity comes from Noah, even those that aren’t listed for the sake of not confusing the crap out of the original audience.