A Tale From My Teaching Years
Back in 1997, during my first year of teaching, I taught British Literature. One of the first units I covered was the Anglo-Saxon period, and the epic of Beowulf. Now, Beowulf followed the mythological “hero cycle” that most hero stories follow—be it Beowulf, Superman, Luke Skywalker, Bilbo Baggins…you name it. Here it is in a nutshell. Picture starting at the top of the circle:
(A) the hero originally is happy at his home when receives a calling to go on a heroic journey;
(B) when he accepts the calling, he ventures out, often gathering a handful of companions on the way to help him;
(C) there are a number of challenges the hero and his companions face, in order to test whether or not he really has that “hero quality”—this is where the hero performs some heroic deeds;
(D) then at the very bottom of the circle is where the hero finds himself alone in “the belly of the whale,” so to speak (or in a dark dungeon; or hell itself)—this is where he faces his ultimate challenge, with no friends or equipment to help him (think, “Turn off your computer, Luke! Use the force!”);
(E) having overcome his ultimate challenge, and thus proving himself to be a true hero, he acquires some sort of magic elixir, or secret of life, that he is able to take back home with him to help his friends and community.
After reading through Beowulf, I had my students write a short 2 page paper for me, in which they got to choose any hero they wanted, from a movie, book—anything, and analyze that hero according to the “hero cycle.” I got papers on a number of famous heroes, but, being it was a Christian school, it was inevitable that a few students wanted to do their paper on Jesus. In actuality, that is a very good person to use—the story of Jesus in the Gospels fits quite well into the “hero cycle.”
As it turned out, there was one student’s paper that I’ll never forget. The part I’ll never forget involved (C). I wanted the students to mention 2-3 “challenges” or “heroic deeds” their hero performed on his hero’s journey. With Jesus, this should be rather easy: after being born in Bethlehem, and getting baptized by John (A), he then begins his ministry and gets twelve disciples (B); then most of the gospels record a lot of “heroic deeds” Jesus did: healing the paralytic, giving sight to the blind, raising Lazarus…the list could go on. Needless to say, there is a lot one can choose from.
Well, this student chose to talk about one heroic deed Jesus did—the one where he gave the 10 Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai. Immediately, I knew what she probably was thinking: “Jesus is part of the Trinity = Jesus is God = Jesus gave the 10 commandments to Moses, because Jesus = God.” I just shook my head, though. Just because Christians believe that God is a Trinity does not mean one can just insert Jesus anywhere in the Old Testament where it talks about God. Jesus didn’t give Moses the 10 commandments; yes, in some mysterious way, we can acknowledge that the Trinity was present as God at Sinai…but facts are facts, and nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus gave Moses the 10 commandments.
I tell that story to show that it has stuck with me all these years as a comedic example of well-meaning Christian kid who really had no clue about the actual doctrine of the Trinity, and had a rather suspect way of interpreting the Bible. But that’s okay…it was just a kid, and kids can make mistakes.
Well, much to my surprise, I recently came across a chapter Ken Ham wrote for The New Answers Book 1 that was posted on the Twitterfeed at Answers in Genesis. Long story short, it turns out that Ken Ham essentially has the same view as that poorly-informed student 20 years ago.
Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?
That was the name of the chapter. Ken Ham’s answer is basically “yes.” But the evidence he cites is suspect to say the least. Before we get to the Jesus-Moses claim, let’s first cover the other things Ken Ham says.
First, he mentions that there are a number of statements in the New Testament that indicate Jesus believed in a young earth. (We’ll just put aside the fact that this is actually a different point that what the title of the chapter puts forth). In any case, Ham cites Mark 10:6 (when Jesus is discussing divorce, and says, “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female”), Mark 13:19 (when Jesus says, “there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now”), and Luke 11:50-51 (when Jesus says that his present generation was going to be held responsible for blood of the prophets that has been shed from the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah).
From these verses, Ken Ham concludes, “From this passage [Mark 10:6] we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.” And [Luke 11:50-51] “indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning.”
I’m sorry, but let’s be kind and say that thinking is sketchy at best. First, let’s state the obvious—none of those verses are talking about the age of the earth. Second, if we were really going to take something like Mark 10:6 literally, we’d have to conclude that God created Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation—namely Day One.
But the Jews of Jesus’ Day Believed the Earth was Young…
Ken Ham then states that the Jews of Jesus day believed that no more than 5,000 years had transpired from the creation of Adam to their day—this is what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote. Fair enough, but the Jews of Jesus day (Josephus included) believed the sun went around the earth, and that men “planted their seed” in women, and that women were nothing more than incubators who contributed nothing to conception. Simply put, the Jews had no knowledge of Copernicus, so they were bound to get that scientific fact wrong; and the Jews had no knowledge of sperm and eggs either—they thought that men shot microscopic people into the woman—but we can’t fault them for not having our modern scientific knowledge of conception.
And so, sure, they may have thought the earth was only 5,000 years old, but they had no knowledge of modern geology, astronomy, genetics, or biology. Just because they assumed the answer to a scientific question like the age of the earth was 5,000 years doesn’t make them right. It just shows they didn’t have the scientific advances we have today—and that’s totally fine. Ancient Israel’s lack of scientific knowledge doesn’t negate the truthfulness of the Bible. Or to put it another way, the Bible’s truthfulness and reliability doesn’t depend on it having every scientific fact right.
Jesus’ References to the Old Testament
Ken Ham then rattles off a list of Old Testament figures and stories Jesus referred to, and concludes that since Jesus mentions them, that proves he thought they were historical. (Again, we’ll put to the side the fact that this too, has nothing to do with the title of the chapter). Jesus mentions: Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Moses in the wilderness, Lot and his wife, Sodom and Gomorrah, Elijah, and Jonah.
“These passages taken together,” Ken Ham concludes, “strongly imply that Jesus took Genesis 1 as literal history describing creation in six 24-hour days.”
What? Off the top of my head, there are three major things wrong with this. First, merely mentioning a figure or story from the Old Testament does not automatically mean Jesus was making a statement regarding whether or not that figure or story is historical. I’ve taught Bible for years, and have taught all those stories, but that doesn’t mean I think they all are to be taken as actual history.
“Ah, yes,” I can hear Ken Ham say, “but Jesus mentioned them, and since Jesus is God, he wouldn’t have mentioned them if they weren’t historical!” Really? God is only allowed to speak historical facts? That puts us in quite a bind, because most of Jesus’ teaching came in the form of parables.
Secondly, the contexts of these stories are different from each other. Genesis 1-11 is a different genre than the passages found in Genesis 12-50, Exodus, and II Kings. And Jonah is in the form of a parable. You can’t lump them all together and conclude, “They must be historical because Jesus mentioned them!”
Thirdly, I still am at a loss at how Jesus’ mentioning of any of those passages has anything to do with Genesis 1. I’m simply baffled.
But What About Old Testament Passages Themselves?
Ken Ham then goes even further and states we can find proof in the Old Testament that Jesus believed creation happened in six, 24-hour days. This astounded me, for I am pretty sure that Jesus of Nazareth isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament. Ah, but Jesus is the second person of the Trinity! Therefore, this opens the door Ken Ham to use some rather questionable exegesis.
Ham first reminds us that Colossians 1:16-17 tells us that Jesus Christ created all things: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”
Of course, that’s not what Colossians 1:16-17 is saying. When it says, “For by Him…” it means “by means of Him.” This would make sense, then, why it later says, “All things were created through Him and for Him.” Paul full-well knew (as the Nicene Creed later confirmed) that it was God the Father who was “Maker of all things visible and invisible.” Christian theology teaches that Christ is the goal and purpose of creation, and that creation is made through Christ—but for Ken Ham to throw this verse out there and say, “You see? Jesus is the Creator!” is exegetically sloppy at best.
But Ham does this for a reason—he wants to show that Jesus spoke of a literal six-day creation in the Old Testament. That means he’s going to have to play fast and loose with a few more biblical passages. How about Psalm 33:6-9? “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” Ken Ham claims that these verses describe how Jesus created.
Of course, Psalm 33 isn’t talking about Jesus; it is talking about how YHWH, the God of Israel, created. But that doesn’t phase Ham, for he continues then by pointing out that just as Psalm 33 talks about how the heavens were made “by the word of the Lord,” and “He spoke, and it was done,” Jesus too did miracles with just His word. The fact that these miracles happened instantly at Jesus’ word shows (according to Ham) that Psalm 33 is about Jesus. But even more importantly, Jesus’ miracles didn’t happen “days, weeks, months, or years” after Jesus spoke—they happened immediately.
Do you see how Ham is going to tie this into a literal six 24-hour days yet? You don’t have to wait: “So, when He [i.e. Jesus] said, ‘Let there be . . .’ in Genesis 1, it did not take long ages for things to come into existence.” Voila! You see what Ham did there? (A) Misinterpret Colossians 1:16-17, and claim Jesus is Creator, (B) Misinterpret Psalm 33, and claim it is describing how Jesus created the universe, (C) back that claim up by pointing to Jesus’ miracles in the gospels…and point out they happened as soon as He spoke, and (D) Genesis 1: “Let there be light!” BAM! LIGHT! Jesus’ miracles happen immediately after He speaks!
That is amazing (or possibly diabolical). Never mind the fact that Genesis 1 does not say Jesus created the heavens and earth—it just took Ken Ham four quick, misleading, misinterpretive steps to get there.
But We Still Haven’t Gotten to Moses…
Ken Ham has one more horrible exegetical trick up his sleeve to make his case that Jesus believed and taught a literal six 24-hour day creation week. He first points out that in John 1 Jesus is called “the Word” who was with God, and who was God in the beginning. He then draws our attention to Exodus 20:1, where God “spoke” to Moses on Mount Sinai. Ham’s conclusion is thus, “Since Jesus is the Word, this must be a reference to the preincarnate Christ speaking to Moses.”
And what did the Creator God [i.e. Jesus] say to Moses in Exodus 20? Just look at 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.” And not only did Jesus say that to Moses, Ham points out, it was Jesus himself who wrote them down on the two stone tablets of the ten commandments! He ends with, “Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?”
That is how Ken Ham tries to prove that Jesus spoke of a literal six 24-hour day creation: misinterpret a number of biblical passages, make no distinction between God the Father and God the Son, turn Jesus into YHWH, and there you have it: “Jesus said clearly that He created in six days.”
Conclusion
I don’t know if such an argument is more hilarious or horrifying. Granted, a number of early Church Fathers associated a number of Old Testament theophanies with the preincarnate Christ. They did it to emphasize that the Trinity, though not fully revealed until the coming of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, was still at work in the Old Testament. I sincerely doubt that any of the early Church Fathers would approve of the way Ken Ham misuses Scripture.
This is the man who is gaining influence throughout the Evangelical world. Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of proper biblical exegesis and interpretation should have chills going down their spine after reading how blatantly Ken Ham distorts Scripture to try and make a case for his pet obsession of proving the earth is only 6,000 years old. And let me point out one more thing. This was a chapter in a New Answers Book that AiG aims at children. This is the kind of “Bible education” that children who read AiG material get.
As someone who has devoted his life to studying and teaching the Bible, that is chilling. Ken Ham has the exegetical acumen of an ill-informed 16 year old girl. The only difference is that Ken Ham is growing in influence in the Evangelical world.
