« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Job, Qohelet, and Obama: A Mismatch Made In Heaven

It is certainly not uncommon for people to take an interpretation of a biblical passage, or even a biblical book, without either being aware of or simply ignoring the fact that there are other, and usually historically traditional and orthodox, views on those very passages. This is particularly true when considering the more difficult passages and books of the Old Testament. Lay people, such as for example Jon Meacham, who have not been trained in the biblical languages or who are not informed of the current state of biblical studies, often assume that the musings of a reputed scholar are necessarily the final words on an understanding of what the Bible says and means.

Such is the case with Meacham’s recent article, in which he attempts to relate the wisdom books of Job and Ecclesiastes to the current plight of President Obama. There is no doubt that the Hebrew scholar to whom Meacham appeals in his interpretations, Robert Alter, is accomplished in the translation and interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. But there is equally no doubt that there are other scholars who are at least as accomplished who take diametrically opposed views to those espoused by Alter, which apparently Meacham takes as being virtually synonymous with the Scripture.

Meacham’s benighted effort to paint a picture of Obama’s utter defeat in the recent election as if it were reminiscent of Job’s experience might even cause Alter to blush. And Meacham’s understanding of the respective messages of the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, and ultimately what he indicates to be his understanding of the nature of God, are far outside of the mainstream of contemporary interpretation and certainly contrary to traditional orthodox understanding.

At one point Meacham declares, “Job and Ecclesiastes are especially atypical, for they are philosophically bleak, asking unanswerable questions. In these books God is great, but he is not necessarily good.” Contrary to Meacham’s inability to have any real insight into the text, a condition common among critical scholars also, the very point of Job and Ecclesiastes is to demonstrate the goodness of God.

Consider Job. Job was a man who feared God so much that he would not even use the word ‘curse’ beside the word Elohim in the text (assuming of course that Job wrote the book that has traditionally been attributed to him). Although modern translations of Job 1:5 read, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts,” the underlying Hebrew actually uses the word ‘blessed’ rather than ‘cursed.’ Out of sheer terror, Job served and worshiped the living God.

Yet God is challenged by the Satan (hasatan) that He, God, protects Job, and that is why Job worships God. God allows the Satan to afflict Job, at first by taking away his material goods and his family, and second by afflicting Job’s body. In the ensuing debate between Job and is erstwhile comforters, Job continues to maintain his innocence of any evil that would justify such treatment, and his interlocutors continually charge Job with sin. When God finally confronts Job from the whirlwind, He makes the point that Job is merely a man who cannot even control his own circumstances. How then can a man presume to administer the affairs of the universe, or even understand such things.

Job repents in dust and ashes, and he says, “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye has seen You;” After God’s interrogation of Job, Job realizes that he did not really know God. He had heard of God. He had heard of God’s justice and righteousness—the very characteristics that made Job afraid of God. However, he did not know God. Meacham points out that Job repents in dust and ashes, but he seems oblivious to the significance of this fact, and as is so common for people who are merely trying to support their own prior conclusions rather than actually to understand the text of the Bible, Meacham neglects to tell his reader that Job retracts his charges against God: “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes” (Job. 42:5–6). The translation “retract” is much too mild. Job actually indicates that, now that his eye has seen God, he despises what he has said about God.

Sometimes, and this is certainly true of me, God uses a two-by-four to get our attention. Job’s experience was designed to teach Israel, and all of God’s children, that although we do not always understand what or why bad things happen to us or to others, we must trust God that He has a plan, and that His plan is ultimately for our good. Meacham also neglects to point out to his readers that God did not simply give Job “gifts of livestock and new children.” God doubled all of his possessions and restored his family. The point is, God will bring all things to a resolution. God will bring justice, and every injustice will be resolved, and every one of God’s children, those who trust Him, will be blessed by Him forever. As Paul said, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18). And later he declared, “For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (1 Cor. 4:17).

We cannot consider the distortions that Meacham imposes upon Ecclesiastes. Suffice to say that Qohelet’s point is that everything in this world—toil (1:4; 2:11,17; 4:4, 7–8), wisdom (2:15), righteousness (8:14), wealth (2:26; 5:10), prestige (4:16), pleasure (2:1–2), youth and vigor (11:10), life (6:12), and even life after death (11:8)—are vanity unless a person takes to heart Qohelet’s conclusion: “The conclusion, when all has been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, because this is for every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc. 12:13). In other words, Qohelet arrives at the same conclusion to which Job arrived. God will bring all things to a final resolutions, and He will set everything right.

In his article, Meacham asserts, “Like Obama, Job was once the highly favored one.” At the beginning of the book of Job, the virtues of Job are recounted to the Satan by God: “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil” (Job. 1:8). Once the Satan had taken Job’s family and riches, God once again extolls the virtues of Job: “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause” (Job 2:3).

Obama is not like Job. Job was blameless and upright. Job feared God. Job held on to his integrity. Obama is no Job.

Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D.
Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages
Southern Evangelical Seminary
Matthews, North Carolina

COMMENTS

  • Bill S

    Thank you for writing this, Dr. Howe. It was absolutely superb.

    • stilhdr

      I am completely stunned by the mere fact of a supposed “educated and intellectual” being could come to such conclusions. In reading through this, I find myself thinking how diametrically opposed to the concepts God has brought forth, that Barry Soetoro is, has been and undoubtedly will be.

      • renny

        the Beast, for his maunderings about how he understands what people are going through in airport security checks.

        He doesn’t understand at all, or care.

        • Read Chesterton

          All we need for that is eyes and ears.

          Besides… the MSM is already believes that, contrary to Paul’s teaching in 1st Timothy 3, the government, not the church, is the pillar and foundation of truth. No exegesis will convince them otherwise, as it’s all just literary interpretation to them anyway.

          • Scope

            in the History books currently being used in our educational system.

          • bobmontgomery

            ….why the Washington Post didn’t cover the issues in the runup to the 2008 presidential election, the Post’s Political Editor, Bill Hamilton replied “We had a larger purpose.” The two previous Democrat candidates had proved themselves to be caricaturish losers. This was the real deal. This was historic on so many levels, race being just the most obvious. This was the “It” guy. The extreme liberal, the professor, the young, Progressive, racially-mixed man of color and letters and awe-inspiring oratory. This was indeed The One. They invested so much, they invest so much, and they likely will continue to invest so much

        • E Pluribus Unum

          Rehoboam was a spoiled and privileged brat who was handed his position of king, after his father Solomon through no merit of his own. If it were possible, he was a bigger idiot than his father. And yes, I said that about Solomon.

          When he ascended to the throne, he rejected the wise counsel of the experienced royal administration, and instead, surrounded himself with his buddies that he grew up with, equally spoiled and lacking in the practical experience of life. His posse, you might say.

          The leaders of the 12 tribes, who had been taxed greatly to pay for the Temple and other Solomon projects, basically told him that if he reduced the burdens on the people, they would gladly serve him.. He told them that if they thought Solomon was tough on him, they hadn’t seen nothing yet. He would raise taxes and regulations like never before.

          What happened following that is instructive and relevant.

          I say Obama is Rehoboam.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            The leader of the rebellion, Jeroboam has his own personal agenda to be a dictator, and in order to keep the people from going to Jerusalem to worship, which he thought would weaken his political position, he created a new religion, setting up multiple idol shrines and a brand new priesthood, and this apostasy coupled with an inability to create a legitimate government led to ongoing political instability, multiple coup d’

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

            Was it:

            1. rebelling?
            2. becoming a dictator himself?
            3. creating a false religion?

            To answer my own question, which is not meant to challenge so much as to interrogate, I’d answer with no, yes, and yes.

            But let’s look at Obama here for a minute. He is already rebelling against the foundational principles of the USA, taking powers that are not rightfully his or anyone’s to take, and promoting the false religion of Marxist progressivism. So a rebel against him who seizes on the principles of the American founding will be prevented from falling into Jeroboam’s trap.

            Resistance, even revolt, is required against those public servants who turn against God in order to oppress the people. But dictatorship is not part of the American founding, nor is the humanist idolatry of Marxism, so as long as Tea Party Rebels stick to the American plan they will be able to write a new sequel to Rehoboam’s foolishness.

          • E Pluribus Unum

            I think the analogy breaks down on the point of Jeroboam though. The Tea Party wants merely to restore what was the original standard – if Jeroboam had been a leader who advoicated “back to the Davidic model” or even better “back to the Samuel model”, that would track what the TP and Middle America are going for.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            See I Kings 12:26-13:34

            We had a popular revolt against a dictatorial and apostate leader (Rehoboam) of the covenant nation who was destroying the nation and the economy though excessive taxation, government waste, etc.

            However, we had Jeroboam who was largely responsible for the military success of the revolt then himself rebel against the Lord and created the seeds of the Northern Kingdom’s ultimate annihilation.

            The warning then is to not allow an individual (or several individuals) to create a centralized Tea Party movement that becomes as dictatorial as the socialist government it opposes – but rather we need to return to the foundation of our nation.

          • AceInTX
          • AceInTX

            I think he has Jezebel’s sense of entitlement…but Rehoboam fit’s his modus operandi

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            I really don’t want to see a civil war – I’d rather the earth open up and swallow up Obama and his clients.

            (c.f. Numbers 16)

      • westforwestwing2012

        Yes, it’s almost blasphemous to compare the hubristic, vain, infanticide-supporting, Christian-mocking communist in the White House to the virtuous and sincere Job.

        As to Meacham himself, when people have an agenda to push, all the advanced degrees in the world won’t keep them from going stupid.

        Obama is more like the wicked king Manasseh in II Kings than he is Job!

        Here’s the man I believe might be the good Josiah to Obama’s Manasseh:

        http://westforwestwing2012.com/great-speeches/

  • Tbone

    and now he is compared to Job. He should really be compared to the Rich Young Ruler who refused to do what was necessary to obtain his salvation.

    • pamela1631

      The comparison of Obama’s self-inflicted difficulties to Job’s trials is like comparing a cheap plaster knock-off to Michelangelo’s David.

      There is no comparison and shame on Meacham for even offering that as an explanation.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Rich Little. A talented guy, know only for his ability to appear to be other people who actually had accomplished something other than posing.

      • Tbone
        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
  • fpete13527

    There are other things I would compare Obama to. I will leave it at that.

  • throwback59

    he should have compared Obama to God.
    And what is the difference between Obama and God?
    God doesn’t think he’s Obama.

    • Adjoran

      Given that his drivel and leadership drove Newsweek essentially out of business. Harder still to believe anyone reads him, but thanks for doing so, just that the unwary may be reminded to approach his product with skepticism, considering his history of prevarication.

      Comparing Obama to Job is hilarious chutzpah. Job was humble and respectful, Obama is arrogant and rudely dismissive of anyone who doesn’t slavishly adore him. Job repented and retracted, while Obama only “blames” himself for failing to use small enough words to explain to his stupid subjects how brilliant his ideas are, and doubles down on those policies in the face of a great rebuke.

      No doubt Meacham cribbed it all from Alter; I bet Jon hasn’t opened a Bible in decades – even when he had to fly over Jesusland.

  • http://simplethoughts.weebly.com/ simplethinker

    “It is certainly not uncommon for people to take an interpretation of a biblical passage, or even a biblical book, without either being aware of or simply ignoring the fact that there are other, and usually historically traditional and orthodox, views on those very passages….”

    “…who have not been trained in the biblical languages or who are not informed of the current state of biblical studies…”

    While I also disagree with Meacham on his interpretation of Job, I also disagree that somehow Biblical scholars are the authority on what is meant by scriptural passages. The phrase “current state of biblical studies” is a tacit admission that the generally accepted positions on biblical passages changes. While biblical scholarship is good and it is important, a biblical scholar has no more authority to say what God means by a particular passage than my neighbor (though they have every right to share their opinion, just as Dr. Howe has done here).

    Biblical prophets often explained what passages of scripture meant, but they didn’t preface what they said with “After years of careful academic investigation, I have determined that Moses meant…” etc. Rather, God himself told them what was meant, and they relied on Him above their own reasoning and that of the scholars of the day (e.g. Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes at the time of Christ). Think what kind of reaction would occur if unschooled prophets were called by God today to teach something different than what mainstream biblical scholars believed. God himself may dictate the message, but most would reject it because they would put more faith in the scholarly scriptural interpretations of a group of men and women than they would prophets.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

      Christianity is a religion rooted in the historical life and work of one Jesus of Nazareth culminating in his death and resurrection within a larger historical covenant narrative from Adam to Abraham and his descendants and, following Pentecost, expanding to include people from all nations through the Church,

      Similarly our understanding of Biblical truth is also rooted in historical understanding of the Bible texts through research as well as the testimony of the Church through the ages and new understandings that each generation arrives at through the continuing work of the Spirit. Check out Rodney Stark and N. T. Wright.

      And the Bible says to test the spirits, which includes those who claim prophetic authority, in light of the historical confession of the Church

      …which is especially important throughout the ages when trying to fit contemporary events into analogy with Scriptural narrative, as Meacham (and perhaps Alter) are doing – especially given the large number of failures of such attempts in the past.

      (For instance, the many failed efforts to identify the Antichrist as a contemporary figure or institution.)

      • http://simplethoughts.weebly.com/ simplethinker

        I’ll admit to thinking too simply at times.

        I’m not quite sure if your response is a rebuttal (if it was meant to be one–if not I apologize). In my initial post I did not say we should ignore history or that studying it or even debating about it is wrong. On the contrary, I said “biblical scholarship is good and important.” I also explicitly said it is proper for Dr. Howe and other biblical scholars to offer their opinion.

        My point was that it is just that–an opinion. It may be correct or it may not. But no one should cement their faith in any scriptural interpretation based solely on whether it is generally accepted by biblical scholars. I think we actually agree on that point–you pointed out that we should test what we receive.

        • red_oakster

          Meacham has taken a serious effort at translation by one the leading scholars of literary dimensions of the Bible and made absurd extrapolations that may have nothing to do with Alter’s own opinions. Alter is a translator and this is an effort of a lifetime of study. Don’t blsme the man for a ridiculous article written by Meacham.

          It had nothing to do with Obama until Meacham wrote an article about what? About how a midterm election is analogous to the trials of Job. What a self-involved load of horsefeathers. Please.

  • Finrod

    .

  • aesthete