Dismantling the Deconstruction of Job

Abstract

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.) In a recent article, Andre LaCocque argues that the discourse in 38-41 does as much to reveal flaws in the created universe as to celebrate the wisdom of the Creator.1 In a previous article on the same subject, LaCocque considered that the restoration of Job's fortune in the epilogue adds perhaps little to the book. It merely returns to popular lore and builds a nice inclusio with the prologue.2 In the recent article, LaCocque is less dismissive and refers to the epilogue in the body of the article. The epilogue is now deemed post-tragic, valuable because it is regarding God as much as Job. Both articles are built around the notion that chs. 38-41 are a rejection of divine omnipotence and a break with the sapiential frame. LaCocque's reading strategy is straightforward: it contests divine omnipotence and Job's innocence. God must be less than omnipotent in order to be innocent of Job's sufferings. The theophany is an admission of weakness that clears YHWH of any taint of injustice. Consequently, must be guilty in order to repent when YHWH faces him. The entire plot is resolved by Job's repentant answer to YHWH. At that point, realizes how wrong he was in blaming a God whom he thought omnipotent and understands that the moment God became creator he divested himself of his omnipotence. Divine weakness then serves several purposes. A weak YHWH is not liable for Job's suffering. Divine weakness allows evil to persist and invites to step in, engage evil, and participate in perfecting creation. LaCocque redeems Job's restoration by shifting the focus away from and reading 42:7-17 as God's triumph, which reaffirms experiential reality by four times mentioning his servant Job. LaCocque's ability to wrap up many loose ends into one coherent reading of is impressive. It is more satisfying than presenting the book of as an anthology of a variety of perspectives that does not resolve the tensions among them.3 The problem is that LaCocque's reading is too good to be true. The reader's pain is indeed alleviated, but at the cost of the betrayal of the text of at several key points.4 In the following, I challenge three elements of LaCocque's demonstration: divine weakness, Job's repentance, and his restoration. I. GLORIOUS RESTORATION? In his 1996 article, LaCocque concluded that the book of closes with the curtain, once raised on human tragedy, falling on comedy. All is accomplished; all is well for the just.5 LaCocque's new article concludes that Job's glorious restoration is also God's triumph (p. 97).6 The idea behind the divine triumph is that YHWH desperately needs as viceroy since YHWH is afraid that upon discovering that YHWH'S weakness implies the persistence of evil, may refuse to get involved in engaging evil alongside of God (p. 88). If God is not the pantocrator of religious ideology, the question arises: Is it still worthwhile to fear God? (p. 93). Quoting his earlier article, LaCocque goes so far as to depict God as being unsure of his covenantal partner, making God insecure. Since YHWH would be the first one to lose if refused to become a partner to defeat evil, YHWH will find himself alone with his unfinished creational task (p. 92). It is certainly nice to be needed-all the better if it is God who needs mortals and if people are able to reassure even God. Yet, for all the beauty of synergism, the whole notion has little textual support, apart from the four mentions of my servant Job (42:7-8). YHWH indeed orders to intercede on behalf of his friends (42:8), but that does not turn into a partner in creatio continua or put God in a begging position (p. 93). Job's position as intercessor is considered below, but first I focus on Job's restoration. With twice as many animals (compare 1:3 and 42:12) and twice as many sons, surrounded by family and acquaintances, could indeed consider himself a happy man. …