New Year, Old Me...
Throwback Monday?
The Significance of Typology for Apologetics
I began writing online about 16 years ago, when I was bored out of my mind in Idaho. I wasn’t a Christian at the time, so I primarily wrote about some postmodern metaphysical ideas I had. I didn’t intend to really do anything with blogging. I was killing time. I was an atheist at the time, and I had no intention of becoming a Christian.
But…God had other plans. I began rethinking my objections to theism in general, later rethinking my objections to Christianity. Over time, God would eventually convert me. I would no longer be a dabbler in theological ideas, but a person who had truly been transformed by the grace of God.
I often forget the fact that while the Lord was leading me to himself, I became more and more enthralled with the literary beauty and cohesiveness of the Bible. In contrast to the postmodernism’s claim that symbolism and meaning in texts always escape the author’s control, I saw that the Bible’s consistency in meaning and symbolism was organically airtight. This not only overthrew my previous belief that the Bible was merely the literary product of a variety of men whose thinking about God, man, and the cosmos lacked any cohesion. It also implied that despite the fact that there are many human authors responsible for the Scriptures, the consistent messaging, images, symbolism, and so imply that there is a single Author who not only controlled the interpretation of his text in the past, but still does so today.
Preface to an Old Post
In particular, it was typology that floored me. I began to see Christ parallels in the Old Testament. It was beautiful, sublime, a feat in literature I had not ever seen accomplished. So I wrote about it privately, as well as on my old blog. Having come across one my old blog entries today, I decided I’d share it below. My hope is that the blog will show you how much an unbeliever can appreciate about the Word of God, and how typology can function apologetically in leading an unbeliever to faith in the Gospel. It was, in part, a consideration of typology that monkey-wrenched my atheistic-humanist interpretation of the Bible as a mere human concoction, and showed me that there was a supernatural mind behind its composition.
—h.
CHRISTOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF JOB
Oct. 20, 2008.
It’s been some time since I last sat down and read the Bible; but with a potential virus and no audio/video capabilities available to me, I decided to read through the book of Job. And I had an almost immediate epiphany: the book of Job is less about the problem of suffering than it is about the suffering of a uniquely1 “perfect and upright”2 intercessor3 who is gradually forsaken by God (in a figurative sense, by God’s granting of power to the adversary over his social, fiscal, and physical well-being)4 and may have already been abandoned by a selfish and indifferent family,5 ultimately receiving double what he originally had in exchange for his suffering. The restitution described in chapter 42, furthermore, indicates that while Job’s position as intercessor was by no means a thing of the past,6 his new family was not marked by the gluttony and indifference of his first family,7 becoming heirs to their father’s “inheritance”8 and not, quite literally, the judgment of God.9
Sound familiar?
Indeed, the narrative bears more than a superficial resemblance to the Gospel narratives, and yet Job-Christ correlations are something that I’ve not heard or read very much about. Instead, there are countless interpretations of the Job narrative as a tale about the universally shared human inability to comprehend the role of suffering in God’s master narrative. I believe that this is a valid interpretation in so far as it paves the way for drawing a subtly profound difference between Job and Christ that reaches its apex in each one’s response to suffering and loss.
A Brief Comparative Analysis
Suffering for Job is revelatory, exposing his self-righteousness10 and pride.11 Christ’s suffering, on the other hand, reveals that he is “sinless” and absolutely “humble.”12 This contrast is evident in a number of areas, specifically with regard to Job’s verbosity about things he admittedly has no knowledge of, and Christ’s near silence in spite of his omniscience (see, Phil. 2:5-11). In a similar vein, Christ does not challenge God as Job does, but willingly accepts God’s will. Lastly, Christ, who was present when God “laid the foundations of the Earth”13 as the “firstborn over all creation,”14 stands in striking contrast to Job, whose uniqueness among God’s creatures is on par with, if not (in the grand scheme of things) equal to, Behemoth,15 tying into, perhaps, the most fundamental difference between the two - the fact that Job’s suffering purges Job and no one else,16 while Christ’s suffering purges those who believe in him.17
“…there is none like him in the Earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil?” (1:8)
ibid.
“…Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all…continually” (1:5)
1:9-12, 2:1-7, respectively.
1:3-4 & 13, seem to indicate that Job’s children were continually engaging in possibly morally compromising situations; 2:9 seems to indicate that Job’s wife is faithless, lacks empathy (i.e. is indifferent), or harbors resentment.
42:7-10.
42:11-15.
42:15.
By God delimiting the range of infliction upon Job and his family (1:12, 2:6), the narrator clearly states that it is God who had “brought upon him” such suffering and “evil” (42:11).
“So these three men ceased to answer Job because he was righteous in his own eyes” (32:1).
“…I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes” (42:6).
1st Peter .2:22-23
38:4.
Col 1:15-17.
40:15 – Here, God states that he created Behemoth with Job, which is a figurative manner of stating that both belong to the order of creature/creation.
42:1-6.
1st John 2:2.