In my previous post, I began to look at the most recent book by Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis (AiG), Gospel Reset: Salvation Made Relevant. In that post, I looked at Ham’s initial analysis regarding the current state of our culture and noted that his basic thesis can be boiled down to viewing the America of the 1950’s as some sort of golden age of Christianity, the America of today as some sort of growing secular dystopia, and concluding that the reason that today’s America is increasingly un-Christian is because the government has taken prayer out of public schools and has used public schools to indoctrinate kids into “the atheistic religion of evolution.” Needless to say, there are a host of problems with that over-simplistic view.
In this post, I am going to zero in on Ham’s over-arching metaphor around which he structures the entire book. He equates the America of yesteryear to the Jews of Acts 2 (Peter’s sermon at Pentecost), and America today to the Greeks of Acts 17 (Paul’s sermon at Mars Hill). Like Ham’s initial analysis of today’s culture, Ham’s over-arching Acts 2/Acts 17 metaphor is equally over-simplistic and puzzling.
A Murder Mystery and a House
Before he discusses Acts 2, though, Ham gives two analogies that show why he feels a proper understanding of the early chapters of Genesis are so crucial. The first analogy is that of an Agatha Christie murder mystery. Sure, you could just skip to the end of the book and find out “who done it?” but it really won’t mean much, and you really won’t understand the overall story that leads to the discovery of the culprit, precisely because you didn’t start at the beginning of the book. The Bible is the same way, says Ham: “You can’t really understand the good news of the gospel unless you first understand the bad news found in Genesis” (38).
The second analogy is that of a house: when you build a house, you start with the foundation, and only after that does he build the walls and roof. For Ham, that foundation is Genesis 1-11, or more specifically, the “teaching that God is Creator, and that sin and death entered the world, as recorded in Genesis” (40). Thus, Ham’s point (similar to that of the first analogy) is that without a proper “foundation” regarding what the problem with the human race is, the “walls and the roof” of the gospel message simply won’t really make much sense.
Now, it may surprise you to hear this, but Ham’s claim that Genesis 1-11 serves as the foundation for the gospel actually is true. He’s right: without a proper understanding of those early chapters in Genesis, the gospel message simply is not going to make complete sense. Genesis 1-11 absolutely serves as the foundation, and indeed sets the stage, for both understanding the history of Israel as recorded in the rest of the Old Testament and understanding the gospel message of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the entire story of Israel.
…of course, just because it is the foundation, that doesn’t mean that it is supposed to be taken as trying to convey accurate historical and scientific information. Ham’s claims on this point run contrary to much of the early Church Fathers, as well as good biblical exegesis, and even Jewish interpretive tradition. Adam was seen more as Everyman, as representing human beings, and isn’t intended to be understood as trying to convey actual history. Simply put, what Genesis 1-11 is teaching about the sinful state of humanity and God’s promise to redeem His entire creation is certainly foundational to the gospel; speculative insistence that it has to be giving a history lesson is not.
Peter and the Jewish Audience in Acts 2
At the beginning of his elaboration on how the America of yesteryear was like the Jews of Acts 2, Ham bemoans the state of today’s secular education system and the compromised church. Indeed, to Ham, these are the two major reasons for the godlessness of today’s culture: public schools indoctrinate kids with evolution and too many churches compromise the faith by not insisting on a literal/historical reading of Genesis 1-11.
Ham then looks back at his childhood and recalls when Billy Graham had one of his crusades in Australia, and states, “Wow! Wouldn’t you like to see a revival like that in our day? We used to see crusades like that in America, but we’re certainly not seeing them now.” Ham then says that the reason Billy Graham’s crusades were so successful was because Western culture in the 1950s was already familiar with Christian language and terminology.
And what was the reason for the familiarity? Why, there used to be the Bible and prayer in public schools, of course. But what happened (and this is where the standard AiG talking points really kick in) was that, just like in Genesis 3, the serpent tricked people into doubting God’s Word—and soon enough, prayer and the Bible were taken out of public schools and the evolution indoctrination began. Ever since, there has been a battle of worldviews raging throughout Western culture: two religions, two worldviews, two starting points—God’s Word vs. man’s word.
But it wasn’t that way back in the 1950s, back when we were more of a Christian culture. Back then, people were more like the Jews in Acts 2 to whom Peter preached his famous Pentecost sermon. In Acts 2, we are told that 3,000 people were saved that day. Ham then asks us to consider why Peter’s sermon was so successful. No, it wasn’t because of the work of the Holy Spirit who convicted their hearts. According to Ham, it was because they already shared the same culture and language as Peter. Ham writes, “They had the history in Genesis concerning Adam and Eve and the Fall of man embedded into their national conscience. And they knew the first blood sacrifice in Genesis was a covering for their sin” (50).
That’s right: because they believed Adam and Eve were historical figures and that there was a one-time historical fall of those two historical figures, and because they knew that there was a first blood sacrifice that occurred so that God could cover their sin—that is why such a mighty salvation occurred that day. America used to be like that, Ham says—not anymore. Today’s America doesn’t even speak the same Christian language. Today’s America isn’t even familiar with Christian terms.
Let’s Consider a Few Things…
To be fair to Ham, he is correct in this one regard: when Peter spoke to his fellow Jews at Pentecost, it is absolutely true that they shared the same cultural language and terminology as Peter. So yes, in that regard, they already were in a better position to understand just what Peter was talking about. Many of them had probably been in Jerusalem for Passover just 50 days earlier and had firsthand knowledge of what happened to Jesus. And yes, being Jews, they would have already been familiar with the larger story and history of their own people.
That being said, there are quite a few problems with Ham’s analogy. First of all, if there is one thing we should take away from the book of Acts (and the Gospels, for that matter!) it is this: merely sharing the same culture and language doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Let’s remember, the Jews of Peter’s (and Jesus’) day, rejected Jesus and persecuted the apostles.
Yes, at Pentecost, many believed, but the overall reaction to the Gospel message on the part of the Jews at that time was that of rejection and persecution: Peter and John are arrested and imprisoned by the Sanhedrin, Stephen is stoned to death, the apostle James is killed, the early disciples flee Jerusalem—and let’s not forget the fact that although Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross, he was arrested and framed by the Jewish religious leaders of that time. The point should be obvious: mere cultural familiarity amounts to nothing when it comes to accepting the Gospel. The majority of Jews in the first century found the Gospel utterly repellent and blasphemous. If anything, it was their cultural familiarity that led them to find Christ crucified to be a stumbling block.
Secondly, this leads to a second problem with Ham’s analogy: it wasn’t cultural familiarity that helped some Jews get saved; it was the empowering work of the Holy Spirit. This is something that Ham completely ignores. Instead, he essentially reduces the reason for those 3,000 Jews at Pentecost getting saved with being rational convinced—as if Peter intellectually convinced them of the truth of the Gospel. The Jews, Ham claims, knew the history of Adam and Eve and the Fall, and that’s why they were more receptive to Peter’s sermon.
The only problem with that is that nowhere in Peter’s sermon does he mention Adam and Eve. Peter explains why they were speaking in other languages by quoting the prophet Joel’s promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; he quotes a psalm from David; he tells them that Jesus was the promised Messiah and that the Jewish religious leaders had him crucified; he tells them that Jesus was resurrected and now at the right hand of God; and he urges them to repent—that was the message. There was nothing in it about Adam and Eve.
Thirdly, there is Ken Ham’s odd claim regarding “the first blood sacrifice” that made it possible for God to cover Adam and Eve’s sin. To the point, there is nothing in Genesis 3 that talks about some sort of “blood sacrifice.” It simply is not there. In Genesis 3:21, we are told that God made garments of skin for them and clothed them, but there is nothing there that hints of some kind of actual sacrifice, let alone blood sacrifice. Yes, some people speculate that there was some sort of actual sacrifice that foreshadows Christ’s sacrificial death—AiG routinely makes this claim—but that simply isn’t in the text. And yes, it is perfectly fine to creatively read back into Genesis 3:21 a type or foreshadowing of the atoning death of Christ, but it is simply false to claim (as Ken Ham and AiG does) that first century Jews believed Genesis 3:21 was about the first atoning blood sacrifice in history.
Simply put, although Ham is technically correct on the most superficial of superficial points (i.e. the America of yesteryear that was more familiar with the general Christian story than it is today is sort of like first century Jews being familiar with the general Jewish story), he is wrong or mistaken on virtually everything else: (1) that cultural familiarity led most Jews to reject the Gospel; (2) despite Ham’s claim that acceptance of the historicity of Adam and Eve played a big part in those 3,000 Jews being saved at Pentecost, there simply is no evidence that Peter’s sermon had anything to do with Adam and Eve; and (3) despite Ham’s constant claim that Genesis 3:21 was the first atoning blood sacrifice in history, the fact is, that simply is not in the text.
Conclusion
Some might find my criticisms of Ham’s claims in this regard to be nit-picky, but I think they are necessary and valid—after all, this equation of the America of yesteryear with the Jewish culture of Acts 2 and the America of today with the Greek culture of Acts 17 is the fundamental metaphor and image Ham uses throughout Gospel Reset. And the fact is, it simply does not hold water. Longing for a supposed golden age of Christian culture of the 1950s, and saying we need to get our culture today back to like being the Jews of the first century (the culture that got Jesus crucified and unleashed the very first deadly persecution of the followers of Jesus!)—well, that’s rather tortured logic, to say the least.
The tortured logic is only going to get worse when we look at how Ken Ham equates the America of today with the Greeks at Paul’s Mars Hill sermon in Acts 17. It looks like I’m going to need at least one more post.
Please consider checking out my Patreon site, or sign up to my FB page “The Blue Collar Biblical Scholar” to get updates every time I post something.
If Ham is saying that we have to control the culture in order for God to be able to work, that seems like a totalitarian argument. That never leads to good things, although it seems that people have forgotten the lessons of the past and want to try it again.
Yes, ultimately, I find his whole point of view very Pharisaical as well.
This perhaps a bit pedantic but in some ways Ham’s pining for the good old days of America seems weird considering he was born and raised in Australia.
Hahaha…yep!
I’m trying to track down some sources, but I seem to remember reading that Evolution wasn’t demeaned in the original pamphlets in the 1920’s fundamentals. Additionally I read that it wasn’t until the 1960’s that YEC became mainstream in evangelical circles and that before that it was primarily, though not exclusively, relegated to Seventh Day Adventists churches. Can you comment on either of these?
That is my general understanding. It was Henry Morris’ “The Genesis Flood” that began to poplarize YEC in Evangelical circles.
I wanted to comment on your paragraph where you state that the Genesis 1-11 is foundational to the gospel message. I’m not totally convinced of that simply because many former pagans would not have had those stories (which you alluded to in your subsequent post, IIRC). I would agree they are foundational to understanding the Jewish worldview and I would also consider them foundational for the Christian worldview even today. But foundational to the gospel message?
I recall that a well-known Greek philosopher (who’s name I cannot recall) came to the same conclusion of the problem of humanity and postulated the necessity of a ‘perfect man’ (I’m heavily paraphrasing at best here – I think you probably know who/what I mean).
On another thought the opening of gospel of John certainly plays to the Greek audience as well as hearkening the creation story, but makes no mention of the particulars.
Perhaps you have a point. Perhaps it is better to say that it is foundational to the overall biblical story. (Case in point: in Revelation, the Dragon warring with the woman and then going off to wage war on the rest of her offspring, as well as the New Eden found in the New Jerusalem).
And I know you’ve thoroughly obliterated Ham’s argument here already, but there’s more.
Jews have no doctrine of original sin. In their view, Adam’s sinfulness has no bearing on the rest of humanity, and each person is born as a blank slate who can – and often does – become righteous before God by their own efforts in following the Seven Laws of Noah (if Gentile) or the Torah + Talmud (if Jewish).
So, no, the Jews did not convert because they felt guilty of Adam’s sin.