Delve into Michael Jones’ perspective as he argues that the Nephilim may have been prideful rulers, challenging the conventional divine interpretation.
Introduction
Michael Jones is the founder and director of “Inspiring Philosophy,” a non-profit organization dedicated to making profound philosophical inquiries accessible to the public. Jones’s best-known work includes research on quantum mechanics and its relation to a theistic worldview, a video series on Genesis 1-11, a defense of the resurrection of Jesus, and videos addressing evil and hell.
For centuries, Genesis 6:1-4 has sparked countless debates. Among the three most popular interpretations, Michael Jones vouches that the Nephilim were kings.
Not Angels, Not Sethites
“The more I look at Genesis, the more I have become convinced this passage is referring to polygamous rulers who abuse their power and brought condemnation upon humanity.”
While traditional interpretations have ranged from viewing the “sons of God” as angels to identifying them as descendants of Seth, Jones has a different idea. According to him, it makes the most sense that the Nephilim were polygamous rulers, driven by pride and power. He breaks down his argument into four parts: immediate context, surrounding context, larger context, and parallels.
Exploring Immediate Context
“If nothing from the Hebrew Bible survived to the present except these four verses, it could hardly be argued that this passage refers to any sort of a union between women and divine beings…”
The text begins by telling us mankind began to multiply throughout the land. Then it introduces another group called the sons of God who wed daughters of men. Then, in verse 3, God says, “My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh.” Oddly enough, God’s own statement tells us who has caused His anger; it was men, not men and divine beings.
Jones’s interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 places a strong emphasis on contextual analysis, urging us to explore the passage detached from later interpretations. When God declares, “My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh,” Jones keenly emphasized that God attributes His anger NOT to divine beings but solely to humanity.
Exploring Cultural Context
Jones also delves into the term “son of God” in various cultural contexts. While it often refers to a divine being, Jones doubts it refers to the same in Genesis 6.
“The term son of God in Hebrew is a phrase that refers to a divine being. But given the context here, as we are arguing, that might not be the case in Genesis 6. There are times humans are referred to as children of God although the Hebrew phrase is never used.”
He highlights instances where the phrase is applied to humans. This includes David being identified as God’s Son in 2 Samuel 7:14, and Messianic movements outside of Christianity, where the Messiah was considered the son of God but not perceived as divine.
In broader cultural contexts, ancient kings were also often referred to as sons of God, as seen in Ugaritic myths and ancient Judean texts.
“Outside of the Hebrew Scriptures, it was common to refer to the king as a son of God. In the Ugaritic myth, King Keret is identified as the son of L. In the ancient Gudea Cylinders the ruler of Judea is also referred to as a son of a God.”
Dissecting the Parallels
“Proponents of the divine interpretation have often tried to counter this by setting parallels to Genesis 3, which does indicate the sin of a divine being, the Nahash. But if you notice, the parallels between Genesis 3 and Genesis 6 are with the sins of Eve, not the sins of the Nahash. Eve saw that the fruit was good, paralleling the sons of God who saw that the women were beautiful. So, parallels to Genesis 3 indicate the sins of the sons of God were that of human sins.”
One of the central pillars of Michael Jones’s interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 lies in his meticulous dissection of the parallels drawn by proponents of the divine interpretation. Specifically, their references to Genesis 3 and the Nahash. Jones challenges these parallels and redirects our attention to an alternative perspective rooted in the sins of Eve.
Jones astutely draws a connection between Eve’s enticement by the appealing fruit and the actions of the sons of God in Genesis 6. Just as Eve found the fruit good, these sons of God found the women beautiful. This parallel, as Jones highlights, underscores the notion that the sins committed by the sons of God were inherently human.
Jones further deepens this perspective by pointing out that if the sons of God were indeed divine beings who sinned akin to the Nahash, a separate judgment or condemnation would’ve been applied to them. However, the text does not present such a scenario. Instead of directing His anger at both humans and divine beings, as seen in the aftermath of the Nahash’s sin in Genesis 3, God’s wrath is exclusively aimed at humans. This selective targeting strongly implies that only humans are implicated in the unfolding events of Genesis 6.
The Surrounding Context: The Nephilim as Polygamous Kings
“The passage could mean the Nephilim were not the direct descendants of the sons of God but simply a group that existed before the transgression of the sons of God.”
Jones then draws attention to the verse “the Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward.” This phrase, as noted by scholars John Walton and Kenneth Matthews, could refer to the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. Hence, Jones suggests that the Nephilim may NOT be direct descendants of the sons of God but simply a group that existed before the transgression of the sons of God.
Michael Heizer’s analysis of the Hebrew grammar further informs Jones’s perspective. Heizer contends that the phrase “and also afterward” points to events occurring after the flood and posits that the Nephilim are indeed the offspring of the sons of God. According to Jones, this still implies a class of humans, not quasi-divine giants.
Jones’s interpretation gains further depth when considering the surrounding context in Genesis. When the narrative declares that “all flesh had become corrupt,” God’s judgment is pronounced upon mankind, not humans and angels.
“But also, notice how Noah is described. Noah is contrasted with the unrighteous humans of his day as being a righteous man. We are constantly reminded of one of the features of Noah: he had one wife, and his sons each only had one wife. In fact, between Genesis six and eight, we are told five times that Noah only had one wife.”
Noah, the central figure in the subsequent narrative, is portrayed in stark contrast to the unrighteous humans of his time. The repeated emphasis that Noah had only one wife, and his sons followed suit with monogamous marriages, implies that it is an important feature of being a righteous man or a ‘son of God.’
With this in mind, it would make sense that this passage was referring to the prideful and lustful sons of God, like Lamech, who took any of the daughters of men for wives as they chose. Thus, narrating how humanity devolved into violence, pride, and polygamy.
The Problems with Divine Interpretation
While Michael Jones once subscribed to the traditional divine interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, he eventually came to identify several significant problems with this viewpoint.
“Immediate context should never be trumped by other passages.”
According to Jones, proponents of the divine interpretation tend to draw context from other parts of Scripture while seemingly disregarding the direct context within Genesis 6. This is in spite of the importance of immediate context in acquiring accurate interpretation.
For instance, Jones acknowledges that in some biblical passages, the term ‘son of God’ indeed refers to divine beings, like in Deuteronomy 32, Psalm 82, and Job 1. The reason he accepts this is because the immediate context within those texts demands it. The same should be done in Genesis 6. We should let it speak for itself and not import meaning from other passages to make sense of it.
Jones also points out several problems with drawing parallels to giants in the Bible, namely Numbers 13 and references to the size of Og and Goliath.
“Although the Masoretic text records Goliath at nine and a half feet, the Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls note he would only have been around six and a half feet… Next, the height of Og was never recorded at around 13 feet; that was the size of his bed. Even Heiser recognizes that the size of someone’s bed doesn’t tell us how tall they were.”
He points out that the recorded height of Goliath varies between biblical sources, with the Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls suggesting a considerably shorter stature than the nine and a half feet stated in the Masoretic text. Additionally, Jones highlights that the extreme height of Og, mentioned as around 13 feet, is based on the size of his bed, not his actual stature. These discrepancies in measurement, according to Jones, cast doubt on the assumption that these biblical giants were beyond the scope of human growth.
Wrapping Up
Michael Jones challenges the traditional view of divine beings and quasi-divine giants by providing strong evidence that the Nephilim were prideful, polygamous kings. By highlighting the similarities between Eve’s fall and the actions of the sons of God, he underscores the fundamentally human nature of the sins depicted in Genesis 6.
To read more about the Nephilim, visit our library of ancient and modern resources on Chasing the Giants. Watch Michael Jones’ full YouTube commentary titled “Genesis 6a: The Nephilim” on Inspiring Philosophy.
