How Job Must've "Hated" His Children

If a child runs out into the street in a mad rush after a ball w/o looking for cars and trucks and a their parent sees it will they not immediately make an indelible impression, in love for that child, upon them to correct such behavior which could have ended up with their child laying crushed dead on the pavement? The CHILD is the one who is going to pay the consequences of their wrongful behavior . The parent may not be there to stop anything. The loving parent can only try to teach them not to exercise such behavior with the most impressionable way that they know. If the child chooses to ignore wise, loving , and impressionable instruction and ends up squashed dead on the pavement, no amount of "consecration" in the aftermath, as we are told Job did for his children in Job 1, will revive that dead body. This is common sense but so often we see parents ignoring and NOT impression-ably making needed corrections in their children's behavior; for example, a memorable spanking to save their children's life. IMO, the parent is more concerned about their own welfare, being politically correct or appearing "forgiving" and "loving" (in a worldly sense) and "liked" by observers than being the correcting tool they are charged to be by God ("train up a child in the way they should go"). Whatever a parent's excuse, if a parent withholds due punishment from a child then it will most likely come later in a much more serious or even fatal degree when they repeat the behavior. In effect, that is hating the child. The parent possibly choosing to only focus upon the here and now, wanting to bathe in their child's acceptance and adoration for the moment, and shirking from the hard and responsible choice of instilling discipline in order to better guarantee their child's future in the world after they have departed and are on their own, or like with this example, still at home. This does risk how the child will afterwards relate to the parent and it may mean much heartfelt pain by the parent as the child usually will immaturely respond, hopefully for only a short season/moment as the parent continues to show their love and the child remembers such. A child's response can even result in a run away in the teen years, but if a parent is hated for the rest of their life by their own child, for the parent having done their best in Christ to love and train the child to survive and flourish in the world in the Way which God desires, the parent CAN be at peace with God; one with God IS a majority. As we see in Job, only Job was spared due to his behavior being, "blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." Job 1:8b NIV

GOD COULD HAVE SPARED JOB'S CHILDREN, AND I SUPPOSE WOULD HAVE, IF THEY WERE AS THEIR FATHER, but we are given plenty of evidence that they were not.

In the parable of the Prodigal Son Jesus gives us a picture of God, the Father/father. The father was wealthy with servants. He could have had a servant follow his disrespectful, unappreciative, and rebellious son, whom he still graciously loved and surely knew would eventually come to ruin in a hostile world, and had the servant rescue the son so that he would not suffer. Did the father do such a thing? Did he bail the son out or did the father let the son come to his senses, however and regardless of how much or degree the son suffered, on his own and in his own way? Did the father move from his position and compromise his due honor? No, he did not. He anxiously waited for the son far away in some strange land to hopefully come to his senses and make the necessary decisions first and turn from his ways and make the hard (he probably had no provisions and beast of burden and/or transport or protection) journey back to his father's domain. The father, THEN, ran to his son, most likely, on HIS own turf.

Just as we see pointed out here in this story, even someone God, Himself, described, saying, "There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil,” can consecrate their children before the Lord. Personal and Spiritual accountability to God belongs exclusively to the children; the individual. The children of Job loved to constantly have parties and "drink wine" as we see in Job 1 and we are even informed that the brothers would invite their sisters to do such with them, in an age and culture when that was not commonly done.

Job's response, we are told, to his children's parties is only to try to atone for his children's possible sins with sacrifices, AFTER the fact, but NOT to jump in and proactively make any needed correction which in that culture would have been appropriate and today, even if they are adult, still possible: "If you are going to live that way, go find another roof to live under to support that lazy, God-hating, parent dishonoring, sexually promiscuous or perverted, and/or etc. lifestyle."

For whatever reason, Job, chose not to correct a bad behavior in his children but rather to try to make reparations for their behavior; take the children's accountability upon himself. His children all died very likely as a result of this failure to discipline them. Job KNEW it was wrong behavior or he would not have been bothered to try to make amends for them to God. Obviously, that is not what God wanted. The price for Job ignoring his duty to discipline and trying to make restitution for his children's behavior was very, very costly.

" “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." Ezek 18: 19-20 ESV

"But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge." Jer 31:30 ESV

" “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."" Jer 24:16 ESV

"So then each of us will give an account of himself to God." Ro 14:12 ESV

NOT THE PARENT FOR THE CHILD OR VISA VERSA OR ANYONE FOR ANYONE!

WE PARENTS MUST PREPARE OUR CHILDREN TO FACE GOD AND MAN, ALONE!

Job's response to his children's apparent debauchery was what is called enabling today. We can chose to empower our children or enable them in regards to training their behavior. Among other actions, enabling makes excuses for, blames all others for their child's misbehavior, takes on the consequences which are due the children, overprotects, bribes/rewards, and gives too much help which fosters dependency, feelings of inadequacy, and addictions whereas empowering a child, in general, instills responsibility and accountability and creates independent abilities and a healthy confidence to make choices and to perform.

11 ways to recognize an enabler: Enabler: Definition, Behavior, Psychology, Recognizing One, More

Helpful hints: Helpful Hints For Empowering Vs. Enabling

When helping hurts: When Helping Hurts: A Lesson on Enabling

You Are Not to Blame for Your Child’s Behavior: You Are Not to Blame for Your Child's Behavior | Empowering Parents

plain jayne spoke the en-quoted parts,

"The Bible does not say that they were sinners and anti-God."

• The Bible does not say that they weren't.

"He prayed in case they had sinned or cursed God. He didn't know."

• Job knew his children.
• Like I said and referenced earlier, we find throughout the Bible that God holds each of us exclusively responsible for our own sin. It would be and is dysfunctional and a reproach to God for a parent or anyone to try to appease God for another's sin.

"The Bible certainly does not say these 10 children had constant drunken parties all the time."

• It does not say that they didn't, either.
• Job, knowing his children and most likely the verses I have quoted from the OT about exclusive individual responsibility for sin, still tried to appease God for any sin they may have committed? This tells me that Job was overly burdened about his children having sinned.

"People to this day believe that when tragedy strikes - SOMEONE must have ticked God off. Puritans were, well, puritanical about that. So are some people today."

• I could not agree with you any more on this. In fact, I have cited the story of Job several times ON THIS SITE to point out that very predisposition people have and to debunk it. I remember it was once or twice to one of the "prosperity gospel" persuasion. And there is or are other times.

"So celebrating with one's brothers and sisters must not be a sin."

• I never said that it was. I merely observed their father's extreme response which we are given to those parties. We are not told that they did not sin and we given clear evidence by someone who knew them intimately, that they did. Job greatly risked God's rebuking for taking upon himself the sins of another. Who does he think he is? The Messiah?

"Looks to me like those first 10 children were not lost. When the devil killed them, they must have went to the place where the righteous Old Testament people went when they died."

• The Bible does NOT say that. Are you putting words into God's mouth?

"Job did have double. The 10 the devil killed to prove a point he could NOT prove and the 10 God gave Job at the end. That's 20 children."

• Your soliloquy of "doubling" is illogical.
  
• First of all, going by your reasoning from God's word, you say the other things were doubled, ie; first 7,000 then 14,000, a total of 21,000, and so on; BUT in following that, the children would be, first 10, then 20; a total of 30. You failed to "double" as your model.
• Secondly, you erroneously add the same 10 to itself, if your unfounded presupposition, is the case, and this is again is NOT what your model does.
  
  

"The death and loss and tragedy were strictly of the devil."

• I never said that they were not.

plain jayne said:

My saying the Bible does not claim them as drunken sinners is true. YOUR saying "the Bible does say they weren't" is implying they were and adding to the Bible and adding to the story. You claim is that that were great sinners. I don't see that.


Where do you think those 10 children went. People either go to heaven or hell or wherever the Old Testament righteous people went before Christ died. And you think *I* am putting words in God's mouth??


You missed the point and the analogy.

Animals don't have a soul that spends eternity somewhere. So when those first 7,000 animals were destroyed by the devil - they were lost, never to return. God provided double the Bible says. Job never had 21,000.

His first 10 children killed had a soul. Genesis says that God breathed the breathe of life into Adam and man became a living soul. Souls spend eternity somewhere. Ergo, those first 10 children were not lost as the animals were lost.

Click to expand...

You are totally misquoting me and claiming me to say things I clearly did NOT and in fact the opposite of what I said. There is no reasoning with such a person. it is a waste of time. Don't go back and try to change what you said I said. It will not change you saying it above in this post as you originally wrote it. You are now on my ignore list.