Posted on 08/04/2012 9:02:42 PM PDT by SC Swamp Fox
If you want Christological reflection, you’re now beginning to ask for a commentary, not a summary. And the book could easily generate many times its volume in commentary text.
The book certainly hints at the theme of the innocent suffering. But this never happens without a reason. In Job’s case, the immediate reason was that God would show the devil that Job’s faith was up to the challenge. Job’s suffering worked nobody’s salvation. In Jesus’ case, the reason was so that he could be the saving hero, bearing the burden of sin that we Christians couldn’t.
I gave an accurate summary: Job is innocent. His friends’ theology requires that his suffering be punishment for sin. He protests that it is not, begs God to explain himself. He refuses to blame God, judge God. The final faith affirmation ties suffering to redemption.
To say that it only hints at innocent suffering is to miss the main point of the book. If Job were guilty rather than innocent, he’d have his answer. Precisely because he’s righteous, yet suffering, is the central issue, not merely a hint.
Did you read the same book I read?
When combined with Isaiah 53 it is an important part of the OT preparation for the Christian message of redemptive suffering.
I mentioned Christologlical implications. That’s simply the way Christians view the OT.
But the summary I gave of the book itself is accurate and the point.
I’m the one who said Isaiah 53 has Christological implications. No need to school me on that, as if you caught me in a contradiction.
You have not accurately read and summarized what I wrote. That’s not being smart-alecky. It’s an observation of what you’ve been doing from your initial response.
Oh, a “real Christian” never follows the face of the story?
So sorry to disappoint you that a summary is not a commentary. I’m sure to you a summary would pass the literal story by and instead would be a mini commentary about what a wonderful picture of Jesus Christ the story of Job is. But I believe words have literal meanings. Summaries are summaries; commentaries are commentaries. I missed nothing by leaving Christology out of the summary. It is because I never presumed to provide a commentary.
I gave an accurate summary. I also gave interpretation. I distinguished the two.
You refuse all interpretation and only give commentary, or so you claim. Of course, insisting that no commentary is ever legitimate is itself to choose a side in interpretation issues.
But continue in your stubborn on your purity.
What a wondrous set of straw men. Ever consider donating them to a museum?
A summary covers the face story. You act all aghast that it does not also cover the Christological hints of the face story. Some passages in Old Testament books carry Christology on their face. Job serves rather as an imperfect analogy to the eternal saga of Jesus Christ (no mortal’s experience could exactly parallel that of the perfect Christ); and one face lesson is not to be ignorant of spiritual warfare, a lesson that carries over directly into the practice of Christianity.
“You act all aghast that it does not also cover the Christological hints of the face story.”
This is simply false. I never wrote that the Christological interpretation is part of the “face story.”
You are falsely representing what I wrote.
You lie.
You drama-queened about how we could possibly be reading the same book, if you recall. And now you are shifting words around. How about donating those straw men to a museum?
How about stop inventing words?
and making stuff up?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.