(1) In general, the Church struggled not only with Job but with the entire Old Testament for the entire duration of the second century. Today, the Church simply doesn't struggle, but rather ignores those things that remain unsettled.
During the Good (Holy) Week we read from Exodus and Job, two most controversial books of the Old Testament. One is a legend that all archaeological evidence shows never happened; it is Christ-less because God goes on a killing spree; the other one is also a Christ-less legend in which a righteous man is subjected to terror for no apparent reason.
The OT became ever less present in Christian writings until +Irenaeus (c 200 AD) who developed the Christian doctrine that equates events in the OT to those in the NT. We see that for instance even +Paul, having determined that the Law was true but temporary, makes no mention of it or of the OT in general in Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Philemon.
We see the OT mentioned mostly in early Gospels (those not associated with the johnny-come-lately mission to the Gentiles), and in early Pauline writings (which were mostly directed at Jewish diaspora).
I also don' see reference to any Old Testament books in 1, 2, and 3 John or in the Apocalypse of John, unless I missed something. To say that the Church from the beginning treated the OT as it does today is simply not historically verifiable. In fact, I would say the early Church experienced an Old Testament crisis in the entire 2nd century.
The two early 2nd century extremes in OT approach were Marcion, who wholly rejected the entire OT, having read it literally, and others who accepted it wholly insisted that it always be allegorically (i.e. the Epistle of Barnabas that used to be considered canonical).
It was Origen first who insisted on reading it literally and allegorically to various degrees.
(2) More specifically, there are several things that are problematic in Job. One is God making a bet to destroy Job, whom God sees as "perfect," because God is "enticed" by the accuser/prosecutor (ha-satan, which is not a proper name, but a title). [also notice in Job 2 that God asks ha-satan where he came from...as if he didn't know; it seems like the OT God is always testing to see if those he talks to would lie to him, as if he doesn't know...]
Two, ha-satan actually wins when Job declares "Though I am guiltless, He will declare me guilty." (9:20), and "I say, He destroys both the blameless and the wicked. When disaster brings sudden death, He mocks at the calamity of the innocent" (9:22). That's as close to cursing God as it comes.
Three, God's response doesn't address any of the Job's misfortunes; neither does God reveal to Job the little "deal" he made with the angel-accuser. God's response is simply to the effect which we in the miltary used to call 'mind-over-matter' (iow, I don't mind and you don't matter!).
Job repents because he accepts that the world is as it is even if we don't understand or like it (the backbone of Taoism!). The fact that Job repents is rewarded, because that's the theme that runs throughout the whole Bible, but the reply God gives to Job is disconnected with Job and it's all God saying how great he is!
It never, ever addresses why it was just and "loving" for God to subject Job to this test. There is no Christ in Job. Christ-like God does not make bets with Satan. The God of Job is not satisfied with one perfect, upright man's loyalty; he doesn't treat Job as his son. Job must be terrorized into fearful acceptance of this Giant. Job is not to obey because he loves, but because he fears God! God is not interested in Job's love; only in his blind obedience.
It is interesting that the OT is about 80% of the whole Bible, and that the Church uses only 20% of it in its annual publicly attended services (excluding Vespers' OT readings and the Lent). It is equally interesting that the only books that sit on the altar are the four Gospels, roughly 6% of the entire Bible.
Those are the only books we stand to, when read, and the only books shown physical reverence when carried before the congregation. In churches with pews, the people sit during the reading of the Epistles, and the Apostle is always read by a layman.
It is clear that while the Church says that the entire Bible is the word of God, it treats 94% of it as packaging for the jewel of the four Gospels and that as far as our praxis is concerned, the Gospels are the Scripture sacrament ally and otherwise. The rest is held in high regard but only the Gospels are revered.
“(1) In general, the Church struggled not only with Job but with the entire Old Testament for the entire duration of the second century. Today, the Church simply doesn’t struggle, but rather ignores those things that remain unsettled.”
The “struggle” ended for all practical purposes, in the 2nd century, Kosta. By the 4th century, Christian theology had developed to the point where the Fathers could refer to the horrors of the OT as stories to scare the simple folk. They were right, Kosta.
The difference in interpretation of Job found in the West and the East is instructive. The monster “god” of the Book of Job is a theological ancestor of the monster “god” which demanded the bloody slaughter of the only thoroughly innocent man, its own Son, to slake its wrath against creation. That has had “interesting” results in the West, results we have never seen in the East, like the Reformation.
I think you are looking at the OT in far too Western a way, Kosta. That leads to people fearing our loving God. The Church employs and explains the OT in a Christian manner as it should be explained.