Saturday 5 February

Job 35:1-37:24

What a lot of baby stuff.  When you are talking to your kids I guess it might be appropriate to say that God causes the snow “Fall on the earth” and that the “breath of God produces ice”.  But, when people get around to doing science GCSE they will surely realise that such stuff is ridiculously immature.  At least, that is what I’ve been told by friend after friend who has heard that I hold to the concept of God being the creator of the universe.  They say that choosing to look purely at the facts quickly shows that science can explain it all and faith is therefore irrelevant.  I’m not an expert on these matters but I do know that facts never “prove” anything; they just support or cast doubt on pre-existing hypotheses.  I also know that the hypothesis of the bible, that there is a pre-existent creator God who engages deeply in the world to sustain and evolve it, is still the best possible explanation of all the facts that have been uncovered by scientific research.  The bible still provides the most complete and most arresting explanatory story (hypothesis) into which all facts can be placed.  No other story has a patch on it, nor has such power behind it.  Power that is available to adults and babies alike.

Matthew 24:1-31

I’m utterly convinced that for the vast majority of this passage Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple which we know happened approx AD70.  Although this passage is regularly used as if Jesus were talking about his second coming I just don’t believe that most of it is relevant to that event.  The first 2 verses could not be more unambiguous - this is about the destruction of the temple.  The next 20 to 30 verses then explain when that will happen.  The disciples, as faithful Jews, believe the end of the temple will be intrinsically linked to “the end of the age” and do not yet realise that the end of the age will come in stages - Jesus’ resurrection first, then his ascension and coronation in the heavenly realms, then the destruction of the temple to show the old covenant is well and truly dead and then, at some point in the future, the resurrection of all the saints, Jesus' return and the creation of the new earth.  Jesus’ disciples do not know that there will be a now and a not yet of the Kingdom - they just think it is not yet present but the whole schebang will be brought in at the time the temple is destroyed.  So we need to be very careful in using this passage to understand the final end of the age.  I think maybe Jesus is referring to it in verses 30-31 but the language is highly symbolic and hugely unlikely to have been the major thrust of what he was saying to his disciples.  After all, Jesus’ disciples had not even understood that he was going to die, let alone be raised again, let alone ascend after he has been raised, let alone return at some point from his ascended place in heaven to make everything new.  We’ll look at this subject loads more when we get into Paul’s letters so, for now, I suspect the primary thing to take from this passage is that Jesus fully knew that Jerusalem was going to be sacked at least 30 years before it was.  He also intrinsically linked this event to the transfer of 'ownership' of the presence of God from the keepers of the temple to his own disciples.  It was a hugely radical and explosive declaration that flung wide the gates of God’s glory and issued an invitation for every Tom Dick and Harry to come and explore.  It also gave his followers a clear framework for understanding the dangerously destructive events that were headed their way.

Proverbs 4:1-9

I wonder if Jesus based the parable of the pearl of great price upon verses 7-9.  They certainly have an identical message; this thing will cost you all you have, but you should pay it willingly as the prize is beyond your wildest dreams.