Job’s Daughters—Job_42:14-15
We are informed in the close that Job had not only eventually his substance doubled to him, but he had seven sons and three daughters, the same number that he had lost—no more. That loss was the least remediable of any. He could be bettered as to his worldly substance, but all that could be done for him in regard to his children, was to afford him compensating substitutes. The mere doubling of the number lost would have availed but little. Nor is it to be supposed but that his affectionate heart often ached, even in the presence of his young children, when he thought of the fair family of grown-up sons and daughters, the object of many years’ care and tenderness, who would by this time have been strength to his arms, and through whom his branches would, ere this, hate spread far around. But he had learned the duty of submission to the will of the Lord, and even this sole grief could not, we may be sure, lead him to indulge in repining, or to undervalue what had been done to console, comfort, and restore him.
But although Job was not, and could not be, compensated by any increase in the number of his children, beyond those he had before, he might be so by the higher qualities of their minds and persons. And there is reason to think that this satisfaction was granted to him, for it is said that “in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job;” and perhaps the same superiority extended also to the sons, though the daughters only are particularly mentioned, or it was the purpose of the sacred writer to notice the singular fact concerning them, that their father “gave them an inheritance among their brethren.” Indeed, considering how little is said of women in Scripture, the particularity with which these daughters of Job are introduced is very remarkable, when nothing beside the number of the sons is given. We are not only informed of the personal qualities of the daughters, and the distinguished portion allowed them in the inheritance, but we are even furnished with their names, which, indeed, are striking and significant. “He called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.” These names are translated into assumed significance in Rogers’ translation, as they are in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and other old versions: “The first called Daye; the second, Poverte; the third, All-plenteousness.” That the meaning of Jemima is “Day” is generally agreed, and is the interpretation given by the ancient versions. Perhaps this girl was the first of Job’s ten children, for it is easy to conceive that the name commemorates her father’s re-emergence into the bright and sunny day, from the dark night of anguish and tribulation through which he had passed. Names significant of change of condition in the parents and especially of returning prosperity, or of hope of what would happen in the children’s time, are frequent in the East, and several such are found in the Bible, which will readily occur to the reader’s recollection. Instances of both are presented near the commencement of the history of man, in Gen_4:25; Gen_5:29.
The second name of Kezia, is very erroneously rendered “Poverty” by Rogers—indeed, we hardly know how he could get at such an interpretation, unless in reference to the etymology of the word, which indicates something stripped off. Nearly all interpreters are agreed that it means Cassia, and it is, in fact, so translated in Psa_45:8. This is a bark something like cinnamon, but less aromatic, and much used in ancient times. Its Hebrew name, Kezia, or Ketziab, is derived from its being, as bark, stripped off the trees. In the East, and especially in Persia, it is still common to give names to daughters derived from spices, unguents, pearls, precious stones, or anything of special beauty or value. The pleasantness and value of the perfume was, doubtless, the reason why Job gave it as a name to his daughter. He meant to declare that she was as pleasant and precious as cassia in the eyes of her father.
The name of the third daughter is very curious. Keren-happuch means literally “Paint-horn,” or a horn or vessel of such paint or stibium as was used for painting the eyes. The custom of painting the eyes has already passed under our notice, Note: First Series—Forty-ninth Week—Friday. and the explanation there given need not be repeated. The present instance is, however, interesting, as showing the antiquity of the custom, even among a people of simple habits. What may most strike the reader, is that such implements of the toilet should be thus reproduced in proper names. We do not give our daughters such names as Pomatum-Pot, Macassar Oil, Kalydor, Honey-Soap, or the like. But, in fact, it is one of the characteristics of the Orientals, that they do not keep in the background the materials and implements of personal adornment, but obtrude them on every available occasion, as objects calculated to suggest agreeable ideas. Hence the vessels containing paints, unguents, and perfumes, give names to females, and supply images to poetry; and painted representations of them, with their names inscribed, are seen, equally with flowers, on the walls of palaces. This was also the case among the ancient Egyptians.
The particular manner in which it is noted that Job gave to these his daughters, “an inheritance among their brethren,” shows that this was a special and uncommon mark of his regard. Probably the rule in the patriarchal age, was the same that we find afterwards existing in the Hebrew law (Num_27:8), under which daughters inherited only when there were no sons. When there were any sons, they divided the whole property among them, the eldest taking two shares. Here, however, we see the father had the power of altering the arrangement, and of including the daughters among the sharers of the inheritance. But the very manner in which it is mentioned, shows that this power was rarely exercised. More freedom, in this respect, probably existed in the patriarchal usage, than under the Hebrew law. That law was designed for a nation of landed proprietors, and was framed to determine the succession to permanent landed property to certain absolute conditions, necessarily more stringent than are required in respect of the succession to pastoral wealth, which has merely the character of what we call personal property, which we ourselves, like most other nations, subject to less strict conditions than the inheritance of land. It expresses, incidentally, the great wealth to which Job eventually attained, that he was enabled to deal thus bountifully with his daughters, without any serious detriment to the heritage of his sons; for the notions of the time as to the preference due to sons over daughters were such, that public opinion would not have justified Job in the course he took, had there not been abundantly enough for all.
Autor: JOHN KITTO