Thread: Job's Familial Headship

I have some questions concerning Job's headship over his sons and daughters. In Job 1, we read:

So as I was studying this morning I pulled out Matthew Henry's commentary on this particular part. Henry commented quite a bit in a positive way concerning the feasts of his sons and daughters:

5. It added to his comfort to see the brothers so kind to their sisters, that they sent for them to feast with them; for they were so modest that they would not have gone if they had not been sent for. Those brothers that slight their sisters, care not for their company, and have no concern for their comfort, are ill-bred, ill-natured, and very unlike Job's sons. It seems their feast was so sober and decent that their sisters were good company for them at it. 6. They feasted in their own houses, not in public houses, where they would be more exposed to temptations, and which were not so creditable. We do not find that Job himself feasted with them. Doubtless they invited him, and he would have been the most welcome guest at any of their tables; nor was it from any sourness or moroseness of temper, or for want of natural affection, that he kept away, but he was old and dead to these things, like Barzillai (2 Sam. xix. 35), and considered that the young people would be more free and pleasant if there were none but themselves. Yet he would not restrain his children from that diversion which he denied himself. Young people may be allowed a youthful liberty, provided they flee youthful lusts.

But then he gets to the portion of the passage wherein Job is shown as consecrating his children, and sacrificing on their behalf. At this point, Henry says:

2. As soon as the days of their feasting were over he called them to the solemn exercises of religion. Not while their feasting lasted (let them take their time for that; there is a time for all things), but when it was over, their good father reminded them that they must know when to desist, and not think to fare sumptuously every day; though they had their days of feasting the week round, they must not think to have them the year round; they had something else to do. Note, Those that are merry must find a time to be serious.

Anyway, the whole implication is that they were in fact sinning during this time of feasting, at least this is what Henry intimates. So then, why would Job (according to Henry's commentary) have a time where he would knowing allow his sons and daughters to get together for a period of feasting which would involve temptations, sins, etc. without rebuke?

Henry:

3. He sent to them to prepare for solemn ordinances, sent and sanctified them, ordered them to examine their own consciences and repent of what they had done amiss in their feasting, to lay aside their vanity and compose themselves for religious exercises.

Why would he let them engage in it, THEN do the sacrifices?

Thoughts? Just curious.

I suppose what I'm trying to ask is:

If it is as Henry has intimated, wouldn't be more incumbent upon Job to keep his kids from sinning altogether, rather than letting them go the course and dealing with sin later?

Good question,brother,

I guess this is how I have looked at it, don't know how helpful it will be;

From 1:1 which describes Job as 'blameless and upright', I assume that Job could not have been engaged in any course of life that was sinful or neglectful of his duties.

From that context, I don't think that Job offering sacrifices after the end of the feasts indicates he thought his children had actually sinned, for if he did, being the God fearing man that he was, he would have stopped them before hand. Rather, I think the passage is showing Job's concern for holiness and his sensitivity for sin. He is simply knowledgeable of the fact that there is more tendency for one to loosen their guard against sin in a time of merry-making, and he is thinking what if one of my children had sinned, and making sacrifices for them in that regard.

I am not sure that Mr Henry is really saying that Job thought his children had sinned. He seems to be saying rather that Job was reminding his children that although it was right and permissible for them to have their party, there is a time for enjoyment, and a time for soberity, and now that they have had their fun, they should make sure they engage in the serious duties of life diligently.

A total flyer here, It may be that the feasts were cultic in nature and that Job for whatever reason chose to exercise his office as priest for the family at that particular time. I think the point of the pericope is to establish that Job is an upright worshiper of yahweh and to set the scene for disaster as his children gather together.

Originally Posted by satz

I guess this is how I have looked at it, don't know how helpful it will be;

From 1:1 which describes Job as 'blameless and upright', I assume that Job could not have been engaged in any course of life that was sinful or neglectful of his duties.

From that context, I don't think that Job offering sacrifices after the end of the feasts indicates he thought his children had actually sinned, for if he did, being the God fearing man that he was, he would have stopped them before hand. Rather, I think the passage is showing Job's concern for holiness and his sensitivity for sin. He is simply knowledgeable of the fact that there is more tendency for one to loosen their guard against sin in a time of merry-making, and he is thinking what if one of my children had sinned, and making sacrifices for them in that regard.

I am not sure that Mr Henry is really saying that Job thought his children had sinned. He seems to be saying rather that Job was reminding his children that although it was right and permissible for them to have their party, there is a time for enjoyment, and a time for soberity, and now that they have had their fun, they should make sure they engage in the serious duties of life diligently.

Well said, Mark.

This may be helpful. The text doesn't say they sinned. What it says is,

Job 1:5 For Job said, "It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts." Thus Job did continually.

Job was worried about the possibility of his children sinning in "saying goodbye" to God in their hearts, this is why he insisted on the ritual purification following this order of feasts. The feasts themselves are never cast in a negative light. However, anytime one takes part in a time of feasting it is easy to focus on the desires of the flesh and to get caught up in oneself and forget about the Lord.

On another note there are a number of different interpretations of the feasts. I think "their day" refers to their birthday, but there are many other interpretations. However, the focus of this portion of the text is on Job's piety, his faithfulness to God in his service to his family. He was deeply concerned about the spiritual state of his children, and he loved them dearly. The Spirit is introducing us to Job. It is noteworthy that the one example we are given to show he is blameless and upright and a man who fears God and turns from evil, is his faithful performance of his duties as a father. That should give all of us who are fathers a cause to reflect on our own spiritual care for our children.

I think Henry is jumping the gun when he intimates that Job's children had sinned. Job's actions were performed on a basis of "just in case" after the feasting was over. Now, if the Hebrew word for "feasting" or "feast" has connotations of sin, then that may be a different matter.