By all means, please like this post, and please share it!
A couple of days ago, Ken Ham re-tweeted a previous post he had written back on March 19, 2012: “The Door’s Still Open.” On one hand, nothing he said was particularly new for Ken Ham. On the other hand, what he said made me reflect more on just how dangerous this man and his organization really are. It goes beyond the redundant talking points he regularly trots out on his blog and in AiG’s materials. As I said in my most recent post on Ken Ham, the more you analyze the man’s message, the more you are able to see the darker undercurrents of all he does.
Let’s Consider Ten Virgins
The gist of Ham’s article is pretty straightforward: Christian pastors and academics who do not subscribe to Ham’s young earth creationist interpretation of Genesis 1-11 are false prophets who are denying the truth of God’s Word and leading people to hell. They probably aren’t real Christians anyway, and so, they are going to suffer God’s judgment. Now, Ken Ham says this sort of thing on a routine basis, peppering his writings with innuendo and a passive-aggressive condescending judgmentalism that he truly has mastered. But in the case of this post, Ham launches an all-out blitzkrieg…
…and his attack begins by a reference to Matthew 25 and the parable of the ten virgins: five were wise and brought oil for their lamps as they waited for the bridegroom, whereas five were foolish and didn’t bring any oil. And so, in the middle of the night, when the bridegroom arrived, the five wise virgins were able to light their lamps and usher him into the wedding banquet, whereas the five foolish virgins had to go buy oil, and by the time they got back, the door to the wedding banquet had been shut, and they were left out in the night. That’s the parable.
Ham’s interpretation and application of this parable is simple: the parable is about “nominal Christians” and “true Christians,” and therefore the five foolish virgins can be applied to the church leaders and Christian academics who don’t think the earth is 6,000 years old. Granted, Ham doesn’t put in in those terms. This is how he puts it:
[The foolish virgins] are “those who say they are Christians but have rejected the authority of God’s Word. They have relied instead on man’s fallible ideas to determine truth. These leaders may have never truly been born-again as the Bible teaches, and, among other things, have put their trust in ‘the scholars’ or other religious leaders rather than the Word, Jesus Christ. In essence, such ‘Christians’ have placed their faith in the writings of man over the clear teachings of the Word—and also over many biblical doctrines, including the Fall of Adam and Eve into sin (Genesis 3).”
Ken Ham’s take on the parable, though, is not only bad exegesis, but he even presents the facts wrong. He said the five wise virgins “kept their lamps lit” as they waited for the bridegroom; but the text doesn’t say that. It says they had brought oil with them, so that they could light their lamps when the bridegroom arrived. In any case, if one reads Matthew 25 within the context of the overall narrative, it becomes abundantly clear that Jesus’s parable is not about “nominal Christians” and “true Christians.” Yes, it has often been applied to the difference between nominal Christians and true Christians, but that’s not what Jesus is talking about. So before we most on with my critique of Hem, let’s have a quick Bible lesson.
What’s the Parable Really About? Read it in Context!
Matthew 25 contains actually three parables: The 10 Virgins, The Talents, and The Sheep and the Goats. All three are essentially about the same thing: the Kingdom of God and who are/who are not true servants of God.
- In the 10 Virgins, the five wise virgins are ready for the bridegroom when he comes, and therefore get to enjoy the wedding banquet, and the five foolish virgins are left out in the night.
- In the Talents, the good and faithful slaves are rewarded when their master returns, and the evil and lazy slave loses everything and is thrown into outer darkness.
- In the Sheep and the Goats, the righteous sheep are rewarded by the Son of Man when he comes, and inherit the kingdom because they served the “least of these;” whereas the evil goats are sent off into eternal punishment.
The key to understanding precisely what these parables are addressing is to view them in light of the surrounding context.
- In Matthew 21-22, Jesus has enters Jerusalem, only to be confronted by the priests, the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, all of whom are clearly rejecting him as the Messiah.
- In Matthew 23, Jesus unleashes a litany of condemnations directed toward the scribes and Pharisees, and repeatedly calls them “hypocrites” who oppress the poor and needy.
- In Matthew 24, what his known as the Olivet Discourse, Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple, which was run by the priesthood and the Sadducees. At the end of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus talks about the “coming of the Son of Man,” and how no one knows the day or the hour of his coming. He then ends with the question and challenge: “Who is the faithful servant? The one who is working when his master comes, or the one who is caught beating his fellow slaves when the master comes?” The unfaithful servant will be caught unprepared, and will be thrown out with the “hypocrites,” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
- In Matthew 25, Jesus tells the parables of the Ten Virgins, The Talents, and The Sheep and the Goats—all of which have the same message: the faithful will be rewarded at the coming of the Son of Man, whereas the unfaithful, those who were unprepared, lazy, and oppressive to the poor and needy, will be cast out, where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
- In Matthew 26-27, Jesus is betrayed, arrested, sentenced to death, and killed. And, in 26:64, at his trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus says, “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Implications for Reading in Context
So, when seen in this larger context, to whom is Jesus referring when he talks about the “foolish virgins,” the “wicked slave,” and the “goats”? The key to understanding that question is being able to understand what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24—and it is actually quite clear. In that chapter, Jesus is not talking about his future second coming. That’s mentioned elsewhere. Here, in Matthew 24, it is plain as day that he is prophesying the destruction of the Temple—and that happened in 70 AD.
The reason why this is important is that the Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting the coming Messiah to defeat Rome, cleanse the Temple, and set Israel up as the supreme political power in the world. Jesus, though, didn’t fit their expectations. Instead, he was saying that he was the coming Messiah, but that the problem wasn’t with Rome, but rather with the Temple, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees. In fact, as was evident, the Jewish religious authorities were actively rejecting their own Messiah. Therefore, as a result, God’s judgment was going to fall upon them in the form of the destruction of the Temple. Jesus, therefore, was prophesying the destruction of the Temple—when that happened, he would be vindicated in the eyes of the world as God’s true Messiah.
Remember, only a small number of followers were witnesses to the resurrection. Therefore, from 33 AD to 70 AD, there still was a lot of debate within the Jewish community regarding Jesus. I believe that the early Christian community (which was, let’s remember, quite Jewish, but reaching out the Gentiles) not only proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection, but also that he had prophesied judgment on the Temple, and that it would happen very soon.
Therefore, “the coming of the Son of Man” was essentially shorthand for talking about Jesus’ prophetic declaration against the Temple, which was fulfilled in 70 AD. If you read most of the passages in the New Testament that talk about “the coming” of Christ in this light, everything falls into place and makes historical sense. They are not talking about some future “second coming” after a rapture and seven year tribulation; they are talking about Christ’s “coming,” meaning his vindication as the true Messiah, and the salvation of his true servants from God’s judgment that came upon Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.
For the record, the small group of Christians who were living in Jerusalem at the time of the Jewish War of 66-70 AD did, in fact, flee Jerusalem (just as Jesus had said to in Matthew 24:16); and for the record, most of the strands of Judaism were destroyed in 70 AD. The only strand that survived was the Pharisaic school, which eventually became rabbinic Judaism.
And, in fact, since we know that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written right around the time of the Temple’s destruction in 70 AD, and since the Olivet Discourse plays a prominent role in all three Gospels, I think an argument can be made that the historical impetus that led to the three Gospels beings written at that time was, in fact, the Temple’s destruction. Jesus had prophesied about it 40 years earlier; it was a major point of emphasis in the early Christian movement; and now that it had happened, it was time to put down in writing, in a historical narrative, the life and message of Jesus that his followers had been proclaiming for 40 years.
Simply put: why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke eventually get written? Because judgment had come upon the Temple, just as Jesus prophesied it would—it was time to bear witness in written form to the fact that Jesus was a true prophet, the true Messiah, and the true Son of God.
Whew…Take a Breath…
Let all that sink in for today. I think such an understanding of Matthew 24 and talk of “the coming of the Son of Man” has huge implications for the way we tend to read parts of the Gospels. I think it actually helps clarify and put a whole bunch of things into perspective. By doing so, I think actually taps into what the original life-changing, revolutionary Gospel message is. It opens the door back out into the biblical world, and allows us to breath in the fresh air of the Gospel.
But for now, let all that sink in. Tomorrow, I’ll bring it all back to Ken Ham’s post, and show, in light of what I’ve said, just how dark and distorted his so-called “gospel” really is.
