Dan McClellan’s “The Bible Says So”: A New Book Analysis Series (Part 5: Satan, God’s Body…Child Sacrifice? Beat Your Kids?)

In this fifth entry of my book analysis of Dan McClellan’s book, The Bible Says So, I’m going to do my best to give a tour of at least chapters 9-12. Let’s see it…if I can do it!

9: The Bible Says Satan is God’s Enemy
I’m going to give a spoiler alert to this topic: Yes, in the New Testament, Satan is certainly portrayed as God’s enemy. In the Old Testament, things get murky…it’s not as clear. In a nutshell, that is the basic idea McClellan gets across in chapter 9.

He begins by pointing out the odd parallel accounts of 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 that have one key difference. In 2 Samuel, YHWH incites David to take a census and then punishes for it, whereas in 1 Chronicles 21:1 it says that Satan did the inciting. I think McClellan is right when he says the editors of Chronicles probably “wanted to avoid making Yahweh the inciter of something bad” (117). That seems to fit with the fact that the notion of a singular entity of “Satan” who is God’s enemy probably came into the Jewish thinking after the exile. The fact is, there just isn’t much in the Old Testament found about a singular Satan as God’s enemy before the exile, and Chronicles is universally acknowledged to be a post-exilic work.

I find McClellan’s take on Satan in Job 1-2 (as well as the ending in 42:7-17) to be problematic. McClellan follows the current view among many historical-critical scholars that the beginning and ending of Job was probably added later on in order to paint “Job’s suffering as the product of the machinations of an antagonizing divine agent and a rather aloof God” (117). It’s problematic for two reasons: (1) the depiction of God basically gambling with Satan over Job’s life doesn’t really portray God in a good light—it makes making sense of God’s actions harder; (2) I think these sections are vital to the literary unity to Job as a whole. Some scholars also claim that Elihu’s speech in Job 32-37 is also a later add-on. I think that’s ridiculous as well, because Elihu’s speech (as with the opening and conclusion) are vital parts to the structure and overall message of Job.

McClellan traces the development of thinking within Jewish literature (I Enoch, the Book of Jubilees) in which we can see the eventual idea of a singular “Satan” who is the chief enemy of God. When he says, “The New Testament is clearly elaborating on the Enochic tradition by representing the Satan figure as the head of a group of malevolent angels who will all face God’s judgment for introducing wickedness to humanity” (119), he’s pretty much right. Of course, the apocalyptic genre as seen in the Enochic tradition (and elsewhere), I would argue, has its roots in various OT prophetic passages (like Isaiah 24-27), but yes, McClellan’s comments here are right.

He also comments on the reference to Satan/the Devil as the “dragon” and “that ancient serpent” in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2. He argues these verses are not talking about the serpent in the Garden of Eden, but rather Leviathan of ANE myth. Well, yes and no. Yes, it is clearly referencing the ANE mythological figure of Leviathan. But, I would argue that there also is a very clear indication that it is referencing the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Here’s why: after the dragon is thwarted from devouring the child of the woman clothed with the sun (because the child is taken up to heaven), we are told that he went off to “make war with the rest of the woman’s offspring.” The child is clearly Christ, and the rest of the woman’s offspring is the Church. In Revelation 13, the Dragon calls up the Beast from the Sea to try to destroy those who put their faith in Christ. This picture echoes Genesis 3:15, where God says He will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between their offspring. Revelation is saying that the “war of the offspring” from Genesis 3:15 is finding its fulfillment in Christ and the Church—that is how evil and the Dragon’s/Satan’s/the serpent’s offspring will be defeated.

Ultimately, though, McClellan is correct in his treatment of the development of the idea of a singular Satan that is eventually and clearly expressed in the New Testament. “The Hebrew Bible knows of no entity named Satan, but it does use the word ‘satan’ to refer to humans and divine agents who operate as opponents or adversaries” (123).

10: The Bible Says God Has a Body
In Chapter 10, McClellan repeats the same argument as his mentor Francesca Stavrakopolou regarding “God’s body.” Since I covered many of these ridiculous claims in my book analysis of Stavrakopolou’s book (see beginning here), I’m going to go light on this chapter.

The gist of McClellan’s (and Stavrakopolou’s) argument is that when the Bible speaks of God and makes reference to God’s hands, arms, feet, etc. we need to take that literally. Even though it is emphasized that God is spirit, McClellan argues (without really supplying any “data” to back his claim up) that in ancient Israel and early Christianity, “spirit” was considered to be “a type of matter, and specifically an incorruptible and impervious type of matter” (127).

Now, it is true that in the New Testament, the ultimate hope is that our corruptible, mortal bodies will be resurrected incorruptible, and this corruptible “old creation” will be recreated—basically, matter is good, God’s creation is good, and He will transform it. We’re not going to be “immaterial spirits” floating around on clouds. We’re going to be resurrected, incorruptible mortal beings living in God’s renewed material creation. Our “Spiritual bodies” won’t be immaterial bodies but will be material bodies filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is also true that at various times in the Old Testament, God “shows up,” seemingly in material form, to eat with Abraham, wrestle with Jacob, etc. In his book, The Religion of the Apostles, Stephen De Young argues that Jews in the Second Temple period came to the conclusion that there were two hypostases of YHWH—one was able to appear bodily to humans, and one was unseeable. This is how they accounted for all the curious passages that I’ve briefly summarizes here concerning the Messenger of YHWH, the Word of YHWH, the Wisdom of God,and the Son of Man. Hence, the idea that God existed in multiple hypostases was not a Christian invention. It was already there in the Old Testament Judaism. That is where the Orthodox teaching that it was the “pre-incarnate Christ” who appeared in the burning bush, wrestled with Jacob, etc. came from. (I wrote a few blog posts this book, starting here).

That’s not really the direction McClellan takes his chapter, though. He doesn’t mention any of that. Still, he is sort of right.

But he is wrong when he goes down the Stavrakopolou-route and argues, for example, that Isaiah 6 is telling us YHWH had a giant penis. [No, Isaiah 6 does not tell us that].

But he is right when he says that later early Christ Fathers like Origen and Clement of Alexandria were influence by and worked within, a framework of Middle Platonism and described God in more “abstract and incorporeal terms” (131). Still, he’s wrong in that he doesn’t even mention that these same early Church Fathers do, in fact, acknowledge bodily expressions of God in the Old Testament, but argue that such instances involved the pre-incarnate Christ…because they were working from the inherited view of Second Temple Judaism regarding how God had multiple hypostases.

So ultimately, chapter 10 is a mixed bag. McClellan is sort of right, but not in the way he thinks. He concludes by saying, “The authors and audiences of the Bible understood God to be corporeal and material, even when they understood him to be ‘spirit’” (135). Well, no. They understood God to be ‘spirit,’ but also having multiple hypostases and having the ability to appear in bodily form—and this idea provided the framework for the early Christians to come to a better understanding of the nature and personhood of Christ.

11: The Bible Says to Sacrifice Your Firstborn Child
When it comes to McClellan arguing that in the Old Testament YHWH really did want the Israelites to sacrifice their firstborn children, though, chapter 11 is just a trainwreck. Let me first bullet-point the lowlights:

• McClellan claims that Jesus’ death on the cross “checks all the boxes of child sacrifice” (138).
• McClellan says, “It almost sounds like Abraham actually sacrificed his son,” because Genesis 22:16 has YHWH saying, “Because you have not withheld your son.”
• But what about the clear fact that when read in the context of Genesis 22, Abraham doesn’t kill Isaac? Well, the story was probably heavily edited over time, with the editors “renegotiating the story as they received it” (141). [I’m sorry, but there is ZERO “data” to support this unsubstantiated and ridiculous claim.]
• McClellan claims that the commandment in Exodus 22:29 (“The firstborn of your sons you will give to me”) is literally commanding them to sacrifice their children, but that the commandments in Exodus 13 and 34 regarding “redeeming” firstborn sons (as well as the version of Genesis 22 we now have, and the commands in Numbers 3 and 8 to “give” the firstborn for priestly service) are just later attempts to “renegotiate” what eventually became a troubling commandment. [When you explain away (with no “data” or proof whatsoever) clear texts that are clearly against child sacrifice as being later editorial attempts to “renegotiate” things, you can make the Bible mean whatever you want it to me. This is pretty consistent with McClellan’s approach to the Bible—the Bible doesn’t have inherent meaning; meaning is just created in the mind of the reader.]
• McClellan claims that in Ezekiel 20:25-26, YHWH says He got so angry with Israel that He added child sacrifice requirements “as a way to show the disobedient nation of Israel who’s boss” (143). [This is misleading. Ezekiel 20:21-24 make it clear that Israel had rejected YHWH’s statutes, and because of that He gave them over to statutes that were not good. The point is that when they rejected His laws and went after the ways of the idolatrous, child-sacrificing nations, YHWH gave them over to that…He let them do it and eventually suffer the consequences.]
• McClellan claims that when Jeremiah denies YHWH ever demanded child sacrifice (7:31; 19:5; 32:35), that such a claim “undermines all the other passages that directly affirm a requirement that firstborn children be sacrificed” (143). [But McClellan has failed to prove that those other passages were actually commanding child sacrifice.]
• McClellan says the reference to the Ammonite God Molech is odd because the actual name was Milcom. (The Hebrew consonants for Molech are mlk, whereas Milcom is mlkm). Therefore, the references to the Israelites following the practices of the Ammonites and sacrificing their children to Molech was a later attempt to “pass the buck” and blame another god than YHWH for the commandments for child sacrifice.
• In addition, McClellan points to a Phoenecian inscription of mlk that is connected to the remains of cremated infants—therefore those passages about “Molech” really aren’t about a deity, but about a type of sacrifice. Therefore, according to McClellan, Jeremiah 32:35 doesn’t really say, “they passed their sons and daughters over to Molech,” but rather “…as a mlk-offering,” and that YHWH would have been the recipient of such offerings. McClellan then ties this back to Exodus 22:29 and says it seems that it was “an early command for Israelites to sacrifice their firstborn, which is probably not the same type of sacrifice as a mlk-offering, but it suggests that Yahweh was in the business of child sacrifice. And business may have been booming” (146). [Just one problem, the Jeremiah 32:35 continues, “…though I did not command them.” McClellan’s argument is not convincing. The only “data” backing his claim up is tortured logic. It is more probable to me that the references to “Molech” (instead of “Milcom”) are intentional to highlight the kinds of horrid abominations that the Ammonite god Milcom required.]

12: The Bible Says You Should Beat Your Kids
Chapter 12 is an extremely short chapter that totals all of four pages. It basically is about spanking children. It really focuses on Proverbs 13:24: “The one who withholds the rods hates his son, but the one who loves him seeks out discipline.” McClellan’s interpretation? “In other words? If you love your kids, you should beat them. …Spanking is abuse” (151). His basic point about Proverbs is thus: “The book of Proverbs clearly and repeatedly praises the use of corporal punishment to discipline and raise children. This was just a widespread bit of the conventional wisdom of the ancient world, but it is a harmful ideology that most people rightly reject today” (152).

Well then, McClellan has declared it to be so! I’ll just give two responses. First, if you do not know the difference between spanking a child on the bottom and actually beating him, you are a moron. What matters is the way it is done. I got spanked a lot as a kid. And every time it was the same: my dad was always calm, took me to my room, spanked me, then sat me down and talked to me. I never thought, “I’m being beaten!” I knew I had done something wrong and was being punished. Children need to learn that.

Second (and every sane parent will agree), young children are not mature, reasoning adults. If little Johnny is chucking a plate, throwing a tantrum, or kicking and hitting another kid, you cannot just say, “Hey Johnny, I don’t think you’re being reasonable here! Food is nutritious and it helps your body develop!” Sometimes you need to smack his butt and get his attention. Young children need to be trained, precisely because they are not mature, rational, reasonable adults yet.

Well, I made good progress in this post. I might get this series done in seven posts. Two more to go.