Dan McClellan’s “The Bible Says So”: A New Book Analysis Series (Part 3: Ex Nihilo, Lying, and Slavery)

Welcome to Part 3 of my book analysis of Dan McClellan’s book, The Bible Says So. Let’s just jump right back into Chapter 3 and see how far we get in this post.

3: The Bible Says God Created the Universe Out of Nothing
Eleven years ago, I was dealing with a certain fundamentalist YECist headmaster over the issue of young earth creationism and how to interpret Genesis 1-11. At one point, he emailed me and asked me about Genesis 1 and whether or not God created ex nihilo. I basically said that while I believed that God created everything, Genesis 1 doesn’t actually say He created “ex nihilo.” Being in the genre of myth, it wasn’t addressing that specific issue. Besides, a clear reading of the first few verses in Genesis make it clear that there was something “there” in the narrative before God started to create, namely “the deep” and an earth that was “tohu wabohu.” I don’t think he liked that, but it’s plain as day, right there in the text. But again, the narrative is in the genre of myth, so I don’t think the material world was literally there before God started creating.

When it comes to the assertion that God created the universe out of nothing, McClellan starts off with a look as Genesis 1 as well, and he is right when he says that Genesis 1 isn’t claiming that. His translation of the Hebrew phrase tohu wabohu, though is odd. He translates it as “mire and muck,” giving the impression that the earth was just something like a swamp, I supposed? Of course, that is not what tohu wabohu means. Most translations have “formless and void,” but John Walton makes a great case that it means something more like “chaos and waste.” God’s act of creation in Genesis 1 is all about bringing order out of chaos and isn’t trying to give a literal timeline account of the creation of the material universe.

He then quickly runs through a number of Old Testament texts that echo in some way other ancient Near Eastern creation myths: Isaiah 27:1 talks about YHWH defeating Leviathan, the twisting serpent; Habakkuk 3:8–15 and Psalm 77:17–20, “refer in parallel ways to God doing battle with the sea and its waters” (43); Psalm 104:2–9 talks about YHWH rebuking the waters and then the waters fleeing from Him; then of course there are the references to Leviathan and “Rahab” in Job 26:7-13 and 38:4-11.

Now, when I look at these poetic texts, I see poetic imagery that emphasizes YHWH’s power as creator. Sometimes the ANE mythological imagery of Leviathan is used, sometimes just the waters of chaos—fine. It’s poetry; it’s creativity. McClelland, though, thinks he can trace these passage out in a historical fashion that reflect “changing concepts of God’s sovereignty” and a “renegotiation” of the traditions: “It begins with an archaic tradition of Yahweh defeating the great sea dragon, Leviathan, in battle. This then gives way to Yahweh fighting with the sea, then rebuking the sea, then confining or compartmentalizing the sea, and finally just commanding the sea, which simply obeys” (44). How McClellan is able to ascertain the exact historical composition of each text, and how he thinks there is that simplistic of a trajectory is baffling to me. There certainly is no “data” to support it.

In any case, he then takes the discussion to later Jewish and Christian interaction with Greek philosophy’s concepts of the material world. Basically, within Greek philosophy, there was a belief that matter was eternal, but its “being” was dependent on whether or not it had form and function—if yes, it was in the realm of being; if no, it was in the realm of non-being—but matter still had always existed. Simply put, passages like Romans 4:17 (God “calls things into existence the things that do not exist”) and Hebrews 11:3 (“By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by God’s word, so that what is seen came from what is not visible”), McClellan claims, aren’t saying God created all things “ex nihilo,” but rather just giving form and function to previously “non-being things.” Basically, McClellan seems to be saying that the writers of the New Testament shared the Greek philosophical concept that matter was, in fact, eternal.

The belief that God created “ex nihilo,” McClellan claims, came from later Church thinkers like Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus of Lyons. Without sharing quotes from these Church Fathers, I’ll just say McClellan’s argument isn’t convincing. I think he employs tortured translations to make Romans 4:17 and Hebrews 11:3 say God was just “calling into existence ‘non-being things.’” In short, it’s a novel claim that flatly contradicts the way these verses (and Christian teaching) have been understood for 2,000 years. Throwing out the line, “Oh, but they’re just renegotiating things,” isn’t convincing.

A better way to address this question is this: (1) In the ANE, no one was asking scientific questions about the origins of the material universe; the ANE creation myths paint “the gods” as powerful, but petty, and ultimately unable to control the forces of chaos; in the OT, the teaching is clear: YHWH is the Creator, and He wields absolute power over chaos. (2) With the NT and early Church Fathers, they were addressing the Greek philosophical claims that matter was eternal, their reply to that notion is a clear, “No it isn’t.” So, does the Bible teach God created the universe “ex nihilo”? The OT isn’t addressing that question. The NT clearly teaches yes, He did.

4: The Bible Says God Lies
Yes, in Chapter 4, McClellan claims, contrary to some anonymous person on social media, that God actually lies. Even though Numbers 23:19 says that God does not lie or change His mind, He really does, a lot! And if you don’t agree, then you’re just presupposing univocality and are insisting “that every other syllable of the Bible must agree with this perspective” (52).

Before we go any further, let’s stop right there. Yes, it is true that some people who have not been educated in Biblical Studies tend to treat the Bible as a grab bag of decontextualized verses that are making absolute statements—and yes, that is not a good thing to do. Numbers 23:19 has a context—Balaam is telling Balak why he keeps uttering blessings on the Israelites. Answer? YHWH has declared Israel is going to inherit the land…and it’s going to happen! He’s not lying and He’s not going to change His mind. Numbers 23:19 isn’t a decontextualized statement about God forever and in every circumstance. If you take it that way, you do get into problems (He “changes his mind” and “repents” over what He was planning to do to Nineveh, for example).

In any case, the way a real biblical scholar should handle a wrong interpretation is to emphasize the context, so one gets a better understanding of Numbers 23:19 within its context. McClellan never bothers to do that at all. Instead, he just says, “Nu-uh! You’re just a “univocality” idiot! God lies!” and then proceed to engage in some laughably horrible biblical exegesis of Genesis 2-3. Again, showing no concept of genre, context, or anything really, McClellan says God lies to Adam in Genesis 2:17, when He warned Adam that if he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that he would surely die on the day he ate from it. Well, Adam didn’t die on that literal 24-hour day, and “day” means “day,” so God lied! Amazingly, McClellan turns into somewhat of a “Bizarro-Ken Ham,” insisting that “day means 24-hour day,” caring nothing for the context, and only pushing his own particular dogma.

McClellan goes to great lengths to argue that any attempt to understand “day” as something other than a 24-hour day, or “death” as a “spiritual death,” is just an attempt to preserve univocality and “protect God’s honesty.” No, McClellan says, God lied because He was just jealous of His divinity and was ready to do “whatever was necessary to keep humanity on the outside of it” (56)—that’s all that is happening in Genesis 6-9 (the flood) and Genesis 11 (Tower of Babel).

I’m just going to say that is a horrible interpretation of Genesis 1-11. You can read my full explanation of it either in my book, The Heresy of Ham, or skim my blog and look for posts –just search in the search bar. McClellan’s take, though, is just tone deaf to context and genre. There’s zero attempt to understand the story. The story of Adam and Eve is ultimately the story of humanity—their story is our story: we, like them, are naïve and foolish, and because of that we inevitably sin and become enslaved to death. That’s the point of God’s warning to Adam: once you disobey and eat, you’re good as dead. To miss that point and say, “But it wasn’t literally on that day! A day is a 24-hour day!” well, I’m going to accuse you of getting in bed with Ken Ham.

Another example of “God lying” that McClellan points to is 1 Kings 22, where Micaiah, a prophet of YHWH, lies to Ahab, and tells him he’ll be victorious in battle. When Ahab says, “Really? You never say anything good to me,” Michaiah basically says, “Yep! Total lie! That’s why YHWH sent a lying spirit to your suck-up ‘prophets.’ He wants you to die in battle!” McClellan says, “See? YHWH lied!” Well, really? By the end of the encounter, Micaiah, the prophet of YHWH, has laid out the complete truth to Ahab…and Ahab decides to go into battle anyway. Sure enough, he gets killed.

No, says McClellan, that’s a “tortured rationalization”: “The only reason to manufacture such tortured rationalizations for rejecting the plain sense of the text is the dogmatic refusal to accept that plain sense. The far simpler conclusion is that the narrator is presenting Yahweh as wanting to mislead Ahab to his death, which he successfully did” (60). But the plain sense of the passage tells us that by the end of the conversation, there was no misleading going on. Ahab was clearly told: “Go to battle, and you’ll die.” But if McClellan wants to channel his inner Ham and carry on about the “plain sense,” which is really just really bad reading, he’s free to do so.

5: The Bible Says Slavery is Wrong
The topic of slavery in the Bible is always a hot button issue. McClellan’s opponent in this chapter on the topic of slavery is Frank Turek. Turek’s basic points that McClellan highlights are as follows: (1) slavery in the Bible was either debt slavery or keeping captives from rebelling; (2) still, the slavery legislated in the Old Testament was more merciful and just than the surrounding nations; (3) the Bible prohibits the slave trade; (4) the Bible teaches all are made in God’s image, so both master and slave are equally human; (5) the main goal of the Bible is spiritual redemption, not social reform; (6) still, God incrementally moved people to an acknowledgment of the evils of slavery.

McClellan scoffs at these comments and ties them to “modern attempts to covertly defend white supremacy” by just insisting they’re defending Western Culture (65). It’s a bizarre comment, given that the slavery in the Bible was not racially based. It seems to me to be just another instance of McClellan injecting his own unrelated culture war dogmas into the argument. After all, Turek is an Evangelical Christian and probably a conservative, and McClellan doesn’t agree with Turek’s comments. Therefore, cue the progressive talking points…because you know, Western Culture is based and all of it is about white supremacy. Let’s just get back to the topic at hand.

First, McClellan begrudgingly acknowledges that there is biblical legislation (Deuteronomy 15, 23) that “seems to offer greater rights and protections to enslaved people” (69) and there is no parallel legislation found anywhere in the region. He dismisses such legislation, though, by saying, “there’s also no indication this law was ever put into effect or enforced” (69), and concludes such laws were just “literary regulations.” That strikes me as a rather weak response, to say the least.

Second, when it comes to whether or not the Bible prohibits slave-trading, McClellan touches upon the vice list in 1 Timothy 1:10, particularly the word andrapodistes, (“slave trader” or “enslaver”). Again, McClellan’s response to avoid what the verse clearly says is weak. He points out that 1 Timothy 6:1-3 tells Christian slaves to treat their masters worthy of all honor, even more so if they are Christian masters, and then basically says, “Woah, look at that! Slavery is condemned and endorsed by the same author! What’s up with that?”

He then argues that the word andrapodistes “doesn’t just refer generically to anyone involved in the slave trade, but specifically to someone illicitly acquiring enslaved people to sell illegally” (73). And therefore, this shows Turek’s claim about how 1 Timothy 1:10 prohibits the slave trade is wrong.

Finally, McClellan addresses Turek’s claim that God tolerated slavery in Israel because “Israel was too deeply embedded within societies that relied on it” (74), but that He slowly brought about the realization of the evils of slavery. McClellan doesn’t buy it, and claims, “God is represented throughout the Bible as miraculously interfering in human affairs to overthrow and overturn entire social systems on multiple occasions without ever hesitating” (74).

Sounds pretty damning to Turek’s point. But then, what examples does McClellan give of God miraculously interfering in human affair to overthrow and overturn entire social systems? He never snapped His fingers to overthrow the ancient institution of slavery, or to instantly install a democratic form of government in ancient Judea, or bring about women’s voting rights. What is McClellan talking about? I don’t know. He gives absolutely no “data” or examples to back up his claim.

To respond to these last two points, I think it is better to see the situation as follows. In the ancient world, the institution of slavery was just a given. Turek is right that it mostly was either debt slavery or result of conquered people in war. It was not racially based as we had in the pre-Civil War United States. Still, the institution of slavery was just a given. Therefore, the legislation in the Old Testament sought to make the institution more compassionate and merciful. Of course, it is going to be similar in ways to the legislation in other nations, but (as McClellan begrudgingly acknowledges) there was more mercy and compassion in the OT legislation.

But why didn’t God just snap His fingers and tell the Israelites it was wrong and just end it right there? Frankly, I find that to be an incredibly juvenile question that reflects an infantile understanding of God and how He works in the world. That’s not the real world. God works with people and nations where they are. You can’t object that God didn’t snap His fingers and end slavery any more than you could object that He didn’t snap His fingers and set up get rid of monarchy and set up a Constitutional Republic with three separate but equal branches of government. What we see in both the Old and New Testaments is that God is more interested in how you act morally and godly in whatever human society or institution you happen to be in.

That, ironically, is something McClellan somewhat acknowledges when it comes to the New Testament. A lot of people have accused Paul of “endorsing slavery” because he tells slaves to obey their masters. McClellan sees the problem with that accusation and says the New Testament writers “had no authority to legislate at all and were reacting to broader Greco-Roman social mores,” (74) and were more concerned with those involved being treated with more dignity and respect. Exactly.

McClellan ends with two odd points. First, he points to “slave language” in the New Testament (i.e. “slave to Christ”) and argues that if the New Testament writers really thought slavery was wrong and were trying to move followers of Jesus to reject slavery as immoral, they wouldn’t have represented the ideal relationship between Jesus and his followers as a master-slave relationship. I find that to be a silly argument. It ignores too many other things in the New Testament to be taken seriously.

Secondly, McClellan rejects the claim that Christianity played a consistent role in the eventual abolishment of slavery between the second century and the 18^th-19^th centuries. Sure, there were “exceptions,” but “the Bible was leveraged overwhelmingly by Christian readers to defend the institution of slavery, and the reason is that the Bible repeatedly endorses that institution” (75). This is an incredibly ignorant take of history. The early Christians had such an impact on ancient Roman society that by the time of the rise of Constantine, Christianity ended up bringing an end to the ancient institution of slavery. You can read about this in my book Christianity and the (R)evolution in Worldviews in Western Culture, as well as Vincent Carroll’s book, Christianity on Trial, and Rodney Stark’s The Triumph of Christianity. The modern form of racially based slavery came about after the so-called Enlightenment during the Colonial period. And even with that, its abolition was brought about through the conviction and influence of, you guessed it, Christians.

So, does the Bible “say slavery is wrong”? I think a more honest answer is that the biblical writers accepted it as the reality of the time and sought to encourage both masters and slaves to treat each other more mercifully, respectfully, and graciously within that reality. Then, when one looks at Church history, it becomes clear that it was the influence of Christianity that brought an end, not only to the ancient institution of slavery, but again, a second time, to the racially based colonial slavery of the 17^th-19^th centuries.