Just as the music group The Doors once sang, “This is the end!” Welcome to my final post in my book analysis of Dan McClellan’s book, The Bible Said So. Before my concluding comments to the whole book, though, I have to first cover chapters 18-19.
18: The Bible Says to Beware the Mark of the Beast
Perhaps the most comically sad characteristics of modern American Evangelicalism is this obsession with the “End Times.” When I was a kid, it was Hal Lindsey’s Late, Great Planet Earth and the “Thief in the Night” movies, and then in the 90s we got Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind Series. How could anyone come up with that stuff? Easy. You cherry-pick random verses and passages, never take the time to consider what they meant in their original contexts, and you simply assume they are thousands-of-year-old predictions of world events that happen in the 20th, now 21st centuries. All of it is as comical as it is void of creativity and talent.
When it comes to the “Mark of the Beast” from Revelation, it is just one part of a larger “End Times worldview” that still has a grip on many within Evangelicalism. There have been numerous explanations regarding who “the Beast” (or Antichrist) is: Hitler, Stalin, the Pope, Ronald Reagan, Barak Obama…and even advertised on Monster Energy drinks! It’s all ridiculous. McClellan rightly calls it out for being ridiculous. He correctly points out that the name “antichrist” isn’t found in Revelation. It is elsewhere and simply refers to anyone who denies Christ—it’s not a reference to a single person who arises in the last seven years of human history. As for the “Mark of the Beast,” (666), it is the numeric value of the name Nero Caesar. McClellan points out that there was general fear among some in the Roman Empire after Nero’s death that he would somehow come back (Nero Redivivus) and lead the Persians against Rome; and that the mark on the forehead was a sign of loyalty, as opposed to the Christians’ having the name of the Lamb on their foreheads. So yes, “The mark of the beast seems to represent a kind of satanic counterpart to the mark used to identify the followers of God and the Lamb” (238). And probably was a reference to the Roman emperor and the fact that Roman coins had his image on them.
McClellan pretty much leaves it at that but doesn’t attempt to provide the larger context regarding what Revelation is addressing. Basically, it is addressed to Christians who were being persecuted under Domitian to answer the nagging question, “Why are we being persecuted? Why isn’t Christ saving us?” Revelation’s answer is that to be a Christ-follower is to imitate Christ, even in suffering and death. Christians defeat “the beast” (and ultimately “the dragon”—Satan himself) through being like Christ and suffering unto death, because resurrection awaits.
In any case, McClellan is correct in his point that modern Evangelical dispensationalism is not a good reading of the biblical text. (If you want to read my take on Revelation, start here with this post….or just buy my Blue-Collar Bible Scholar’s Reader’s Guide to the New Testament).
19: The Bible Says Sinners Will Be Punished Forever in Hell
O hell! We’ve come the last chapter! The basic question is this: “Does the Bible say sinners will be the equivalent of a hamburger patty on a grill that is cooked over flames for eternity?” McClellan’s answer is again fairly good and correct. Here are his main points:
- In the Old Testament, there are references to Sheol, which pretty much meant “the pit,” “the grave,” or simply death. But there was no concept in the OT of sinners burning forever in hell.
- The idea started to be seen in later apocalyptic literature like 1 Enoch 90, that speaks of a “fiery abyss” to the south of a new Temple (which was probably a reference to the Valley of Hinnom [mentioned in 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:21-32; Isaiah 30:33; Isaiah 66:24] that was believed to be a garbage dump/landfill where garbage (and according to McClellan) bodies of criminals was burned up. McClellan states there is “absolutely no data” that supports that, and that “somebody long ago just made that up” (246). Is he right on that claim? I don’t know. I’ve always been under the impression that the Valley of Hinnom was where child sacrifice was practiced, that it later became the garbage dump where trash was burned up—and that eventually served as the metaphor for “Gehenna” mentioned in the Gospels and the “lake of fire” in Revelation.
- McClellan basically lays out that within Christianity, there have been generally three view concerning the fate of sinners: (1) Annihilationism (sinners’ punishment is a loss of life and they cease to exist), (2) Eternal Conscious Torment, and (3) Universal Salvation (God is so good that somehow even sinners will be saved). Basically, McClellan is right—there has been no single, consistent view. I personally lean toward Annihilationism.
McClellan’s Conclusion (Along with Mine)
In McClellan’s conclusion, he comes back to his basic points he laid out in his introduction. First, he insists that “we create meaning with the Bible, rather than just withdraw meaning from the Bible” (253). He then says that scholars really aren’t extracting meaning from the Bible either—they’re “reconstructing” as well. The difference is that they “spend an awful lot of time gathering data” so they can try to “minimize the role of [their] own needs and interests and [try] to maximize what [they] think the earliest authors, editors, and audiences mostly likely understood by these texts” (253).
There are two things wrong with that statement. First, although in theory that is what biblical scholars do, in reality they easily fall into the trap of reading their own agendas and ideologies into the biblical texts to try to make it mean what they want it to mean. McClellan is a perfect example of this. His entire book is one of (A) often correctly pointing out how certain people read into the biblical texts their own biases and politically-motivated agendas, but then (B) instead of simply trying to lay out what particular biblical texts are saying within their original contexts, McClellan proceeds to read into those biblical texts (you guessed it!) his own biases and politically-motivated agendas.
To his credit, McClellan says his book is definitely not an inerrant book and he is not an inerrant scholar. He will probably change his views on some issues, depending on the data. We’ll see. I think, though, that he is so wedded to his own dogmas and political agendas, that he has convinced himself so much that his way of interpreting the Bible (i.e. the way he creates meaning from the Bible), that he cannot see that for all his talk of “data over dogma,” he is just as guilty of pushing his dogma and passing it off as data.
This becomes clear as day with his closing comments. Once again, he circles back to the “three presuppositions” of those dogmatic Evangelicals (or anyone who disagrees with him): Inspiration, Inerrancy, Univocality. He says, “With these three presuppositions, the texts can be treated as a single, unified whole that can be configured and hierarchized in ways that allow us to center and give priority to the texts that say the things we like, and to marginalize, reinterpret, or outright ignore the texts that say things we don’t. Biblical worldviews and ethics can thus be ignored so the Bible can be weaponized for use in whatever culture wars we’re fighting today” (255).
He then spends the final four pages speaking about how conservative groups and Evangelicals “and their thought leaders” refuse to think critically and who use the idea of “biblical authority” to serve their own interests, in particular the oppression of women and LGBTQ+ communities. He says since we have overruled the Bible’s endorsement of slavery now, we should now overrule it on issues regarding women, immigrants, and the LGBTQ+ community. He writes, “For far too long, folks who wield the Bible to structure power, values, and boundaries over and against the interests of marginalized, minoritized, and oppressed groups have been allowed to operate relatively unchecked. That needs to stop, and it’s up to us, collectively, to decide when that happens. All it takes is enough folks who are willing to prioritize the mental health, the well-being, and the very lives of women, immigrants, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and many, many others over and against the utility of those identity markers to structures of power” (259).
He ends with, “We already create its message in our own image and likeness in so many different ways. We’re going to negotiate with the Bible whether we acknowledge it or not. That’ simply an inevitability” (259).
What is wrong with any of that? A lot. McClellan has set up conservatives and Evangelicals as the big, oppressive boogeyman and argues that people need to rise up and fight them by creating their own meaning from the Bible in the service of very specific modern political issues. Basically, he’s saying, “Let’s make the Bible serve our own political agendas and progressive dogmas.” He clearly has the academic background in Biblical Studies, but he isn’t nearly as “data-driven” and objective as he seems to think he is. He has a clear political and cultural agenda. McClellan is just as much of a “culture-warrior” as Ken Ham.
Ten years ago, when I wrote The Heresy of Ham, one of my criticisms of young earth creationists like Ken Ham is that simply want to use the Bible to justify their own political agendas in “fighting the culture war.” Since the Bible is inspired (I certainly believe that it is), our number one goal should be to understand the inspired meaning within a biblical text’s original literary and historical contexts. And let that inspired message influence how we come to modern cultural and political issues. But don’t try to make the Bible mean whatever your given political dogma wants it to mean. Well, newsflash: McClellan is doing the exact same thing as Ken Ham—he’s just at the opposite end of the spectrum.
I know firsthand know what it’s like to deal with dogmatic, politically-driven ultra-Fundies who have their battlelines already drawn. Instead of working through and discussing complex issues, they deal only with broad-brushed accusations and simplistic caricatures. If you even seem to step one inch out of line from their accepted dogmas and caricatures, you get labeled and slandered. Even if you’re against abortion, if you say, “Well, I’m not sure the second the sperm hits the egg, that the single cell is a person,” then you’re lined up with those “liberal baby-killers.”
That is the exact same mentality I see McClellan display throughout his book and here in his conclusion. If you think that there should be some limits on abortion, or that immigration law should be enforced, or that children should not be allowed to have surgery that removes their sexual organ, I guarantee you McClellan sees you as the enemy, probably a conservative and an Evangelical. He won’t consider the possibility that you might have actual thought-out reasons for your positions. No, you’re just a dogma-driven apologist who probably dreams that The Handmaid’s Tale is in America’s future and longs to oppress minorities. McClellan, on the other hand, has well-reasoned positions “driven by the data,” that make it able for him to create meaning from the Bible
….and amazingly, it serves his biases, dogmas, and political agendas.
That might sound harsh (and admittedly a bit hyperbolic), but it is clear as day to me.
Let’s Recap!
All that said, if you want ultra-stripped downed answers to the issues McClellan raises in his book, starting with chapter 3, here you go!
Chapter 3: Does the Bible say God Created Ex Nihilo? The Old Testament doesn’t because it isn’t addressing that question. Yes, it is claimed in the New Testament (and many of the early Church Fathers).
Chapter 4: Does the Bible say God Lies? Not really. He doesn’t lie to Adam and Eve, and in the story of Micaiah and Ahaz, Ahaz clearly gets the truth before the end of his talk with Micaiah.
Chapter 5: Does the Bible say Slavery is Wrong? It is addressing how God’s people should act and behave given those historical reality living with institutional slavery the ancient world.
Chapter 6: Does the Bible say God had a Wife? No. Sure, some ancient Israelites worshipped YHWH as if He were just another pagan deity with a wife, but the Bible clearly condemns such a view and practice.
Chapter 7: Does the Bible Say Abortion is Murder? It never really directly addresses it, although it is the clear testimony of the early Church that abortion was the equivalent of infanticide and the exposure of infants. But even then, many early Church Fathers did not think women should necessarily be punished.
Chapter 8: Does the Bible Say Rape Victims Must Marry Their Rapists? No. The Mosaic Law distinguishes between adultery, rape, and two people caught just having sex.
Chapter 9: Does the Bible Say Satan is God’s Enemy? Not really in the Old Testament (more like a fallen angelic being who rebels). But yes, in the New Testament, certainly.
Chapter 10: Does the Bible Say God Has a Body? Simple answer, no. But, in those instances in the Old Testament where God interacts with human beings, Second Temple Jews believed that YHWH revealed Himself in two hypostases. The Christian understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the Trinity) thus has its historical roots in Second Temple Judaism.
Chapter 11: Does the Bible Say to Sacrifice Your Firstborn Child? No. Child sacrifice was practiced in ancient Israel, but that was because they forsook the covenant and engaged in the practices of pagan nations. But nowhere in the Bible is that condoned. It is condemned.
Chapter 12: Does the Bible Say to Beat Your Kids? It teaches it is good to discipline them. If you can’t tell the difference between spanking and actual child abuse, you have a problem.
Chapter 13: Does the Bible Say There is Only One God? You’ve got to define “elohim.” Yes, the Bible acknowledges other divine beings, but YHWH is the one true God. The New Testament obviously accepts this and denies that other pagan gods are really gods at all.
Chapter 14: Does the Bible Say Homosexuality is an Abomination? It clearly condemns same-sex sexual activity and sees it mostly in connection with pagan worship in some way. It says nothing about “sexual orientation.”
Chapter 15: Does the Bible Say Women Need to Cover Up? It calls for modesty and says women should be more concerned with godliness and good works. No, that is not an example of misogyny.
Chapter 16: Does the Bible Say the Messiah Would Be Born of a Virgin? When understood in context, Isaiah 7:14 is about the birth of Hezekiah, and how by the time he grows up, Assyria would come in and kick Judah’s butt because of Ahab’s unfaithfulness. Hezekiah would be faithful to YHWH, and YHWH would eventually kick Assyria’s butt because of Hezekiah’s faithfulness. Both Matthew and Luke use that to further explain who Jesus is (Matthew: Jesus is like Hezekiah, “but bigger;” He is the true King of the Jews, not Herod; Luke: Jesus is the Savior of the World, not Caesar). Still, both Matthew and Luke say Mary really was a virgin.
Chapter 17: Does the Bible Say Jesus Was God? Yes, and the seed of Trinitarian thought are already there in the New Testament. Later Church Councils did not force the doctrine of the Trinity onto people by the brute force of the Roman Empire.
Chapter 18: Does the Bible Say to Beware the Mark of the Beast? Yes, but it was addressed to late first-century Christians, and “the beast” was probably Domitian. Revelation is not a prediction of events in the 21st century.
Chapter 19: Does the Bible Say Sinners Will Be Punished Forever in Hell? Not really. If you want to read a fabulous in-depth look at this question, read my posts here and here.
This book is just another person speaking about the Bible who fronts the fact that they have studied it deeply to try to insert in their incorrect reading of human beings into it. These subjectivist types believe in one thing that is objectively true (well, they believe in many things that are true, even if they say nothing is actually true): power is the baseline motivating factor in human relationships. They will never admit that they’re relationships are built on power and power alone, but generally everyone else suffers from this. I hate this back-reading of all of human history as though power was the only motivating factor in anyone’s action for their entire life as it is deliberately cynical and ignorant of actual human behavior. Interestingly enough, those who claim power is the only source at the heart of human relationships also use this reading to claim power for themselves. The point being: not everything that has ever existed has existed for the sole purpose of one person or group of people gaining power over another person or group of people and reading this into the Bible will automatically distort your reading of it.