In this sixth…yes, sixth…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 chapters 13-15.
Over this past week, as I’ve written these posts on The Bible Says So, I hope a couple of things have stood out. First, the claim by the random guy on social media that McClellan picks on is, admittedly, shallow, simplistic, and doesn’t really reflect a nuanced view of the Bible that a good Biblical Studies education gives you. Second, more times than not, McClellan is right to show that such claims are wrong. BUT third, in the process of doing that, McClellan his own assumptions, biases, and “dogmas” into his argument and misleads people by claiming it’s “data.” In any case…
13: The Bible Says There is Only One God
Does the Bible consistently say there is only one God? Not really…at least not that explicitly. Still, the overall arch of both the Old and New Testaments is clear: the God of Abraham is YHWH, the Creator God, the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, led them to the Promised Land, and spoke through the prophets. He is the one, true God. All other “gods” are not equal to Him—they are divine beings but are not on His level. What pagan nations thought were actual “gods,” are really just either angelic beings or demons. Ultimately, that is the basic argument McClellan makes…sort of. But let’s run down a few specifics in the chapter.
- He claims that the “us” in Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man…”), 3:22 (“man has become like us…”), and 11:7 (“Let us go down…”) is not so much the Trinity, but a reference to God’s divine council that consisted of other gods. Basically, McClellan is correct but doesn’t give a proper understanding of who these other “gods” are. They are lesser divine beings.
- McClellan throws out a huge unsubstantiated claim in his comment regarding Genesis 6:1-4, where the sons of elohim “go into” (i.e. have sex with) the daughters of man. He says, “If elohim is understood as a reference to the God of Israel, then the bene elohim are God’s own divine offspring, likely born of God’s consort or wife, Asherah” (156). There is nothing in the entire Bible that claims YHWH, the God of Israel, had Asherah as His wife. Yes (as we saw in the previous post), we have evidence that some in ancient Israel thought so, but if we are concerned with what the Bible actually says, it never makes that claim.
- McClellan discusses Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and claims that YHWH is not, in fact El Elyon, but actually just one of many “children of elohim” who was given the nation of Israel to rule. I discuss this argument in depth here (at least in my book analysis of Michael Heiser). The overall context of Deuteronomy 32 makes it clear that YHWH is El Elyon. On top of that, there is Deuteronomy 4:19, that says, that YHWH allotted the nations to the various “gods.” McClellan’s response to that textual data? Simple—Deuteronomy 4:19 was written after 32:8-9 and was trying to make it sound like YHWH was the high God. What’s the “data” that proves that? There is none.
- McClellan claims that in the story of 2 Kings 3 regarding Israel and Judah’s attack on Moab, specifically in 3:26-27, when the king of Moab sacrificed his child to Chemosh, Israel lost and that meant that YHWH was defeated by Chemosh. He also made a video on this. Scholar Joel Korytko did a response to McClellan’s claim that I’ll link here.
Both in this chapter and in the video, McClellan dismisses anyone who disagrees with his take as just clinging to their own biases and dogmas. He also claims that the overwhelming number of scholars agree with him. Korytko proves conclusively that is not the case—McClellan give a broadbrushed “appeal to authority,” and Korytko shows the receipts. Long story short, the plain meaning of the text is not that YHWH was defeated by Chemosh. It’s a very ambiguous texts and scholars tentatively have given their takes, but nobody (other than perhaps McClellan?) is dogmatic about it. I found Korytko’s interpretation to be very insightful and faithful to the context. It’s this: YHWH told Israel to do certain things when they invaded Moab (cut down trees, stop up springs, tear down walls). They did most of that but left the walls in Kirhareseth standing…and that was where the king of Moab performed the child sacrifice. That is why “wrath” came upon Israel and they left—they failed to obey YHWH fully.
After that, McClellan says that over the course of time, those other “gods” got regulated in Jewish and Christian literature to being angels or demons. Fair enough.
Finally, McClellan does go too far when he tries to claim that in I Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul really wasn’t saying, “there is no God but one” and “for us there is only one God,” but rather, “only one God matters to us.” Needless to say, that is quite a novel interpretation.
14: The Bible Says Homosexuality is an Abomination
This is another topic (like abortion) that many Evangelicals get wrong regarding what “the Bible says.” Overall, McClellan’s take on why the claim that “the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination” is actually correct. Here are his main, valid points:
- The terms in question used in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are arsenokoitai and malakoi. The former term is a specific reference to a man who “inserts” into another man, while the latter term reference the man who “receives” it. Those verses, therefore, are condemning the actual sexual acts. (This also applies to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). They aren’t commenting on our modern notion of “sexual orientation.” McClellan is correct when he says, “The Bible cannot possibly be saying homosexuality as a reference to sexual orientation is an abomination because the concept of sexual orientations didn’t exist at the time in any way that remotely resembles the way we think about them today” (171).
- He also is correct when he says the biblical authors viewed those acts “cultic, exploitative, and abusive acts,” and that “The idea of a loving, monogamous homosexual relationship wouldn’t occur to them” (171). I would add that they probably saw such acts as being part of the cultic “worship” in pagan temples. And yes, the idea of a monogamous homosexual relationship wouldn’t have occurred to them. Basically, yes, those Bible verses are condemning specific sexual acts between men, and yes, they were probably viewed in the context of pagan worship, but no, they aren’t commenting on what we in the modern world call “sexual orientation.”
- He is also correct in his assessment of Genesis 19 and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah—the “sin” was not “homosexuality,” but rather attempting sexual assault and rape. It wasn’t so much that the men of Sodom were “gay,” but rather were looking to abuse the vulnerable. Also, Jude 1:7 isn’t about homosexuality. The sin it is talking about from Genesis 6:1-4 was divine beings copulating with earthly beings—that is the “unnatural flesh.”
- McClellan’s take on the Apostle Paul’s view of sex and sexuality has much to be desired. McClellan claims that Paul, a celibate man (he was), wanted everyone to be like him (not really), and that he “thought Jesus was going to be returning at any moment, and so there wasn’t time for big life changes like kids” (178). This is highly misleading at best and is giving the impression that Paul was just a first century version of Tim LaHaye, and that early Christians held the same view as modern Evangelical dispensationalist thinking. But that is a whole other can of worms.
- McClellan’s overall take on Paul’s comments in Romans 1 (about how same-sex sexual activity isn’t “according to nature” is that he’s just talking about social conventions and that his sexual ethic is “based on outdated social frameworks and inaccurate concepts of human sexuality” (181). Therefore, what Paul says isn’t relevant for today. Besides, most of the time people just want to keep Paul’s sexual ethic when it comes to condemning same-sex intercourse. “They’re almost never talking about celibacy, avoiding having kids, or passionless sex meant to keep the urges at bay” (181). Of course, Paul never says celibacy was what God wants for everyone, or that having kids is bad, or that sex had to be “passionless.” All of that is a gross distortion of Paul.
The bottom line is that yes, the Bible condemns same-sex sexual activity, but that condemnation is always set within a context of the sexual practices within pagan temples. And no, the Bible doesn’t say anything about the modern notion of “sexual orientation.” Now, McClellan’s conclusion is that “same-sex attraction is equally as innate, immutable, and foundational to an individual’s sexuality as any person’s heterosexual attraction. It is just as much a part of the natural order. Paul was just wrong. (Again.)” (182).
Well, I think McClellan’s conclusion is ultimately wrong. The issue is not one of sexual attraction. Like McClellan says earlier in the chapter, the issue of “sexual attraction” isn’t addressed in the Bible. That being said, sure, one can say a person’s own sexual attraction is just as “natural” as another person, but biblically-speaking, everything in the “natural order” is corrupted, and that includes all sexual attraction, be it heterosexual or homosexual. What passages like I Thessalonians 4:4 are saying is that followers of God need to keep their sexual attractions, their sexual urges, and their sexual practices under control. There are a lot of heterosexuals whose urges and practices are out of control, and that’s bad. The same goes for homosexuals. Therefore, to say, “My kind of sexual attraction is natural, and therefore it’s good,” is not wise. If you don’t control it, you’re going to be populating a small village within a decade!
But to the real question in this chapter, “What does the Bible say about loving, monogamous homosexual relationships?” It doesn’t say anything. So figure it out for yourself, and pray the Holy Spirit guides you. Blanket condemnations or blanket affirmations doesn’t do anyone any good.
15: The Bible Says Women Need to Cover Up
I personally found this chapter rather lame. Now, I taught in Evangelical schools for 16 years, and there was always an issue with girls having to dress modestly. And yes, sometimes the reason given was, “You don’t want to dress in a way that will cause men to lust.” And yes, I thought that was a lame reason because, being a guy (and especially when I was a high school guy), it was very easy to lust after women even if they were wearing ponchos or potato sacks. So, making girls feel guilty or ashamed because guys tend to get aroused over anything that moves is never good. That being said, every society and social group is going to have certain rules or views concerned with what is and is not considered “modest.”
But let’s highlight McClellan’s take on all things related to this issue:
- Deuteronomy 22:5 (a prohibition of cross-dressing): McClellan it is “about social boundaries and conventions and threatening social cohesion and stability.” That’s a bit general, but basically I agree.
- But then he points out that the statement translated, “A woman shall not wear…” literally means in Hebrew, “an item shall not be upon a woman.” And McClellan insists this is an instance of men’s power in the social hierarchy, and patriarchy, and misogyny because it indicated that men were the one who decided what women were allowed to wear. I think that is quite a stretch.
- Proverbs 7:10 and the story of Judah and Tamer in Genesis 38. In both cases, it refers to dressing like a zonah (sex-worker or common prostitute). McClellan argues that zonahs probably had certain garments that identified them as sex-workers, and it really probably wasn’t about “showing skin.” Again, I find this pretty lame. The point is that you probably don’t want your daughters to dress in a provocative, hyper-sexualized manner that would make people think they were hookers.
- I Timothy 2:9-10: McClellan argues that the call for women to dress modestly and be more concerned with “dressing themselves in good works,” so to speak is blatant misogyny. He writes: “The point is that women’s dress should signal their submissiveness and domestication. Their place is in the home and should show that they know it” (198). And again, “women have a distinct and subordinate role within good Christian society” (199). That’s his take on “dressing modestly” and “good works.”
- I Timothy 2:11: This is the strange verse that says woman are to “learn in silence and submissiveness.” McClellan just says it’s straight up misogyny and dismisses any attempts to give another explanation as to what the verse (2:11-15 actually) is saying of just being “entirely speculative, and ultimately, I think it’s reading into the text what we want to find” (199). Given his propensity of reading into verses what he wants to find, I find that comment highly ironic. I personally find N.T. Wright’s explanation to be convincing. I comment on it here. McClellan seems to miss the fact that these verses are saying women should learn and be educated, just like men…and in that culture, education was pretty much submitting yourself to a teacher.
Ultimately, McClellan is right to point out the obvious: our modern society is different than ancient Israelite or early Christian society. Standards of modesty are going to be different. And he’s right to condemn those who try to shame women for how they dress because they’re “making the guys lust.” That being said, to paint all talk of “modesty” as misogynistic attempts to keep women under the control of men is silly. The fact is that our current society does hypersexualize women and encourages (dare I say pressure!) women to dress in hyper-sexual, provocative ways—and that’s not good. And it’s not just “misogynistic men” saying that. Encouraging modesty and good works is a good thing for everyone. A mature and discerning attitude about this issue realizes there is a vast difference between shaming women for just wanting to look nice because it might “make men lust,” and warning them not to fall for the hyper-sexualization our current society tries to impose on women.
