Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 40:15
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
15. Behold now behemoth ] The word, behemoth, may be a Heb. plur. of intensity, signifying the beast or ox, par excellence; but probably it is an Egyptian name Hebraized. It has been supposed to be the Egyptian p-ehe-mout, i. e. the water, or river ox. At all events the animal referred to appears to be the hippopotamus, or river-horse, of the Greeks.
I made with thee ] Or, have made with thee; that is, have created, as well as thee. This strange animal, though fitted by his size and strength to prey upon other creatures, feeds upon grass like the cattle.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Behold now behemoth – Margin, or, the elephant, as some think. In the close of the argument, God appeals to two animals as among the chief of his works, and as illustrating more than any others his power and majesty – the behemoth and the leviathan. A great variety of opinions has been entertained in regard to the animal referred to here, though the main inquiry has related to the question whether the elephant or the hippopotamus is denoted. Since the time of Bochart, who has gone into an extended examination of the subject (Hieroz. P. ii. L. ii. c. xv.), the common opinion has been that the latter is here referred to. As a specimen of the method of interpreting the Bible which has prevailed, and as a proof of the slow progress which has been made toward settling the meaning of a difficult passage, we may refer to some of the opinions which have been entertained in regard to this animal. They are chiefly taken from the collection of opinions made by Schultens, in loc. Among them are the following:
(1) That wild animals in general are denoted. This appears to have been the opinion of the translators of the Septuagint.
(2) Some of the rabbis supposed that a huge monster was referred to, that ate every day the grass of a thousand mountains.
(3) It has been held by some that the wild bull was referred to. This was the opinion particularly of Sanctius.
(4) The common opinion, until the time of Bochart, has been that the elephant was meant. See the particular authors who have held this opinion enumerated in Schultens.
(5) Bochart maintained, and since his time the opinion has been generally acquiesced in, that the riverhorse of the Nile, or the hippopotamus, was referred to. This opinion he has defended at length in the Hieroz. P. ii. L. v. c. xv.
(6) Others have held that some hieroglyphic monster was referred to, or that the whole description was an emblematic representation, though without any living original. Among those who have held this sentiment, some have supposed that it is designed to be emblematic of the old Serpent; others, of the corrupt and fallen nature of man; others, that the proud, the cruel, and the bloody are denoted; most of the fathers supposed that the devil was here emblematically represented by the behemoth and the leviathan; and one writer has maintained that Christ was referred to!
To these opinions may be added the supposition of Dr. Good, that the behemoth here described is at present a genus altogether extinct, like the mammoth, and other animals that have been discovered in fossil remains. This opinion is also entertained by the author of the article on Mazology, in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, chiefly for the reason that the description of the tail of the behemoth Job 40:17 does not well accord with the hippopotamus. There must be admitted to be some plausibility in this conjecture of Dr. Good, though perhaps I shall be able to show that there is no necessity for resorting to this supposition. The word behemoth ( behemoth), used here in the plural number, occurs often in the singular number, to denote a dumb beast, usually applied to the larger kind of quadrupeds. It occurs very often in the Scriptures, and is usually translated beast, or collectively cattle.
It usually denotes land animals, in opposition to birds or reptiles. See the Lexicons, and Taylors Hebrew Concordance. It is rendered by Dr. Nordheimer (Heb. Con.) in this place, hippopotamus. The plural form is often used (compare Deu 32:24; Job 12:7; Jer 12:4; Hab 2:17; Psa 50:10), but in no other instance is it employed as a proper name. Gesenius supposes that under the form of the word used here, there lies concealed some Egyptian name for the hippopotamus, so modified as to put on the appearance of a Semitic word. Thus, the Ethiopian pehemout denotes water-ox, by which epithet (bomarino) the Italians also designate the hippopotamus. The translations do not afford much aid in determining the meaning of the word. The Septuagint renders it, theria, wild beasts; Jerome retains the word, Behemoth; the Chaldee, , beast; the Syriac retains the Hebrew word; Coverdale renders it, cruelbeast; Prof. Lee, the beasts; Umbreit, Nilpferd, Nile-horse; and Noyes, river-horse. The only method of ascertaining, therefore, what animal is here intended, is to compare carefully the characteristics here referred to with the animals now known, and to find in what one these characteristics exist. We may here safely presume on the entire accuracy of the description, since we have found the previous descriptions of animals to accord entirely with the habits of those existing at the present day. The illustration drawn from the passage before us, in regard to the nature of the animal, consists of two parts:
(1) The place which the description occupies in the argument. That it is an aquatic animal, seems to follow from the plan and structure of the argument. In the two discourses of yahweh Job 3841, the appeal is made, first, to the phenomena of nature Job 38; then to the beasts of the earth, among whom the ostrich is reckoned Job 39:1-25; then to the fowls of the air Job 39:26-30; and then follows the description of the behemoth and the leviathan. It would seem that an argument of this kind would not be constructed without some allusion to the principal wonders of the deep; and the fair presumption, therefore, is, that the reference here is to the principal animals of the aquatic race. The argument in regard to the nature of the animal from the place which the description occupies, seems to be confirmed by the fact that the account of the behemoth is immediately followed by that of the leviathan – beyond all question an aquatic monster. As they are here grouped together in the argument, it is probable that they belong to the same class; and if by the leviathan is meant the crocodile, then the presumption is that the river-horse, or the hippopotamus, is here intended. These two animals, as being Egyptian wonders, are everywhere mentioned together by ancient writers; see Herodotus, ii. 69-71; Diod. Sic. i. 35; and Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxviii. 8.
(2) The character of the animal may be determined from the particular things specified. Those are the following:
(a) It is an amphibious animal, or an animal whose usual resort is the river, though he is occasionally on land. This is evident, because he is mentioned as lying under the covert of the reed and the fens; as abiding in marshy places, or among the willows of the brook, Job 40:21-22, while at other times he is on the mountains, or among other animals, and feeds on grass like the ox, Job 40:15, Job 40:20. This account would not agree well with the elephant, whose residence is not among marshes and fens, but on solid ground.
(b) He is not a carnivorous animal. This is apparent, for it is expressly mentioned that he feeds on grass, and no allusion is made to his at any time eating flesh, Job 40:15, Job 40:20. This part of the description would agree with the elephant as well as with the hippopotamus.
(c) His strength is in his loins, and in the navel of his belly, Job 40:16. This would agree with the hippopotamus, whose belly is equally guarded by his thick skin with the rest of his body, but is not true of the elephant. The strength of the elephant is in his head and neck, and his weakest part, the part where he can be most successfully attacked, is his belly. There the skin is thin and tender, and it is there that the rhinoceros attacks him, and that he is even annoyed by insects. Pliny, Lib. viii. c. 20; Aelian, Lib. xvii. c. 44; compare the notes at Job 40:16.
(d) He is distinguished for some unique movement of his tail – some slow and stately motion, or a certain inflexibility of the tail, like a cedar. This will agree with the account of the hippopotamus; see the notes at Job 40:17.
(e) He is remarkable for the strength of his bones, Job 40:18,
(f) He is remarkable for the quantity of water which he drinks at a time, Job 40:23; and
(g) he has the power of forcing his way, chiefly by the strength of his nose, through snares by which it is attempted to take him, Job 40:24.
These characteristics agree better with the hippopotamus than with any other known animal; and at present critics, with few exceptions, agree in the opinion that this is the animal which is referred to. As additional reasons for supposing that the elephant is not referred to, we may add:
(1) that there is no allusion to the proboscis of the elephant, a part of the animal that could not have failed to be alluded to if the description had pertained to him; and
(2) that the elephant was wholly unknown in Arabia and Egypt.
The hippopotamus hippopotamos or river horse belongs to the mammalia, and is of the order of the pachydermata, or thick-skinned animals To this order belong also the elephant, the tapirus, the rhinoceros, and the swine. Edin. Ency., art. Mazology. The hippopotamus is found principally on the banks of the Nile, though it is found also in the other large rivers of Africa, as the Niger, and the rivers which lie between that and the Cape of Good Hope. It is not found in any of the rivers which run north into the Mediterranean except the Nile, and there only at present in that portion which traverses Upper Egypt; and it is found also in the lakes and fens of Ethiopia. It is distinguished by a broad head; its lips are very thick, and the muzzle much inflated; it has four very large projecting curved teeth in the under jaw, and four also in the upper; the skin is very thick, the legs short, four toes on each foot inverted with small hoofs, and the tail is very short.
The appearance of the animal, when on land, is represented as very uncouth, the body being very large, flat, and round, the head enormously large in proportion, the feet as disproportionably short, and the armament of teeth in its mouth truly formidable. The length of a male has been known to be seventeen feet, the height seven, and the circumference fifteen; the head three feet and a half, and the mouth about two feet in width. Mr. Bruce mentions some in the lake Tzana that were twenty feet in length. The whole animal is covered with short hair, which is more thickly set on the under than the upper parts. The general color of the animal is brownish. The skin is exceedingly tough and strong, and was used by the ancient Egyptians for the manufacture of shields. They are timid and sluggish on land, and when pursued they betake themselves to the water, plunge in, and walk on the bottom, though often compelled to rise to the surface to take in fresh air.
In the day-time they are so much afraid of being discovered, that when they rise for the purpose of breathing, they only put their noses out of the water; but in rivers that are unfrequented, by mankind they put out the whole head. In shallow rivers they make deep holes in the bottom to conceal their bulk. They are eaten with avidity by the inhabitants of Africa. The following account of the capture of a hippopotamus serves greatly to elucidate the description in the book of Job, and to show its correctness, even in those points which have formerly been regarded as poetical exaggerations. It is translated from the travels of M. Kuppell, the German naturalist, who visited Upper Egypt, and the countries still further up the Nile, and is the latest traveler in those regions (Reisen in Nubia, Kordofan, etc., Frankf. 1829, pp. 52ff). In the province of Dongola, the fishermen and hippopotamus hunters form a distinct class or caste; and are called in the Berber language Hauauit (pronounced Howowit.) They make use of a small canoe, formed from a single tree, about ten feet long, and capable of carrying two, and at most three men.
The harpoon which they use in hunting the hippopotamus has a strong barb just back of the blade or sharp edge; above this a long and strong cord is fastened to the iron, and to the other end of this cord a block of light wood, to serve as a buoy, and aid in tracing out and following the animal when struck. The iron is then slightly fastened upon a wooden handle, or lance, about eight feet long. The hunters of the hippopotamus harpoon their prey either by day or by night; but they prefer the former, because they can then better parry the ferocious assaults of the enraged animal. The hunter takes in his right hand the handle of the harpoon, with a part of the cord; in his left the remainder of the cord, with the buoy. In this manner he cautiously approaches the creature as it sleeps by day upon a small island, or he watches at night for those parts of the shore where he hopes the animal will come up out of the water, in order to feed in the fields of grain.
When he has gained the desired distance (about seven paces), he throws the lance with his full strength; and the harpoon, in order to hold, must penetrate the thick hide and into the flesh. The wounded beast conmmonly makes for the water, and plunges beneath it in order to conceal himself; the handle of the harpoon falls off, but the buoy swims, and indicates the direction which the animal takes. The harpooning of the hippopotamus is attended with great danger, when the hunter is perceived by the animal before he has thrown the harpoon. In such cases the beast sometimes rushes, enraged, upon his assailant, and crushes him at once between his wide and formidable jaws – an occurrence that once took place during our residence near Shendi. Sometimes the most harmless objects excite the rage of this animal; thus; in the region of Amera, a hippopotamus once craunched in the same way, several cattle that were fastened to a water-wheel.
So soon as the animal has been successfully struck, the hunters hasten in their canoe cautiously to approach the buoy, to which they fasten a long rope; with the other end of this they proceed to a largo boat or bark, on board of which are their companions. The rope is now drawn in; the pain thus occasioned by the barb of the harpoon excites the rage of the animal, and he no sooner perceives the bark, than he rushes upon it; seizes it, if possible, with his teeth; and sometimes succeeds in shattering it, or oversetting it. The hunters, in the meantime, are not idle; they fasten five or six other harpoons in his flesh, and exert all their strength, by means of the cords of these, to keep him close alongside of the bark, in order thus to diminish, in some measure, the effects of his violence. They endeavor, with a long sharp iron, to divide the ligamentum lugi, or to beat in the skull – the usual modes in which the natives kill this animal.
Since the carcass of a fullgrown hippopotamus is too large to be drawn out of the water without quite a number of men, they commonly cut up the animal, when killed, in the water, and draw the pieces ashore. In the whole Turkish province of Dongola, there are only one or two hippopotami killed annually. In the years 1821-23, inclusive, there were nine killed, four of which were killed by us. The flesh of the young animal is very good eating; when full grown, they are usually very fat, and their carcass is commonly estimated as equal to four or five oxen. The hide is used only for making whips, which are excellent; and one hide furnishes from three hundred and fifty to five hundred of them. The teeth are not used. One of the hippopotami which we killed was a very old male, and seemed to have reached his utmost growth. He measured, from the snout to the end of the tail, about fifteen feet, and his tusks, from the root to the point, along the external curve, twenty-eight inches.
In order to kill him, we had a battle with him of four hours long, and that too in the night. Indeed, he came very near destroying our large bark, and with it, perhaps, all our lives. The moment he saw the hunters in the small canoe, as they were about to fasten the long rope to the buoy, in order to draw him in, he threw himself with one rush upon it, dragged it with him under water, and shattered it to pieces. The two hunters escaped the extreme danger with great difficulty. Out of twenty-five musketballs which were fired into the monsters head, at the distance of five feet, only one penetrated the hide and the bones near the nose; so that every time he breathed he snorted streams of blood upon the bark. All the other balls remained sticking in the thickness of his hide. We had at last to employ a small cannon, the use of which at so short a distance had not before entered our minds; but it was only after five of its balls, fired at the distance of a few feet, had mangled, most shockingly, the head and body of the monster, that he gave up the ghost.
The darkness of the night augmented the horrors and dangers of the contest. This gigantic hippopotamus dragged our large bark at will in every direction of the stream; and it was in a fortunate moment for us that he yielded, just as he had drawn the bark among a labyrinth of rocks, which might have been so much the more dangerous, because, from the great confusion on board, no one had observed them. Hippopotami of the size of the one above described cannot be killed by the natives, for want of a cannon. These animals are a real plague to the land, in consequence of their voraciousness. The inhabitants have no permanent means of keeping them away from their fields and plantations; all that they do is to make a noise during the night with a drum, and to keep up fires in different places. In some parts the hippopotami are so bold that they will yield up their pastures, or places of feeding, only when a large number of persons come rushing upon them with sticks and loud cries.
The method of taking the hippopotamus by the Egyptians was the following: It was entangled by a running noose, at the extremity of a long line wound upon a reel, at the same time that it was struck by the spear of the chasseur. This weapon consisted of a broad, flat blade, furnished with a deep tooth or barb at the side, having a strong rope of considerable length attached to its upper end, and running over the notched summit of a wooden shaft, which was inserted into the head or blade, like a common javelin. It was thrown in the same manner, but on striking, the shaft fell and the iron head alone remained in the body of the animal, which, on receiving the wound, plunged into deep water, the rope having been immediately let out. When fatigued by exertion, the hippopotamus was dragged to the boat, from which it again plunged, and the same was repeated until it became perfectly exhausted: frequently receiving additional wounds, and being entangled by other nooses, which the attendants held in readiness, as it was brought within their reach. Wilkinsons Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. iii. pp. 70, 71.
Which I made with thee – That is, either I have made him as well as you, have formed him to be a fellow-creature with thee, or, I have made him near thee – to wit, in Egypt. The latter Bochart supposes to be the true interpretation, though the former is the more natural. According to that, the meaning is, that God was the Creator of both; and he calls on Job to contemplate the power and greatness of a fellow-creature, though a brute, as illustrating his own power and majesty. The annexed engraving – the figures drawn from the living animal – shows the general appearance of the massive and unwieldy hippopotamus. The huge head of the animal, from the prominency of its eyes, the great breadth of its muzzle, and the singular way in which the jaw is placed in the head, is almost grotesque in its ugliness. When it opens its jaws its enormously large mouth and tongue, pinkish and fleshy, and armed with tusks of most formidable character, is particularly striking. In the engraving hippopotami are represented as on a river bank asleep, and in the water, only the upper part of the head appearing above the surface, and an old animal is conveying her young one on her back down the stream.
He eateth grass as an ox – This is mentioned as a remarkable property of this animal. The reasons why it was regarded as so remarkable may have been:
(1) that it might have been supposed that an animal so huge and fierce, and armed with such a set of teeth, would be carnivorous, like the lion or the tiger; and
(2) it was remarkable that an animal that commonly lived in the water should be graminivorous, as if it were wholly a land animal.
The common food of the hippopotamus is fish. In the water they pursue their prey with great swiftness and perseverance. They swim with much force, and are capable of remaining at the bottom of a river for thirty or forty minutes. On some occasions three or four of them are seen at the bottom of a river, near some cataract, forming a kind of line, and seizing upon such fish as are forced down by the violence of the stream. Goldsmith. But it often happens that this kind of food is not found in suffient abundance, and the animal is then forced on land, where it commits great depredations among plantations of sugar cane and grain. The fact here adverted to, that the food of the hippopotamus is grass or herbs, is also mentioned by Diodorus – Katanemetai ton te siton kai ton chorton. The same thing is mentioned also by Sparrmann, Travels through South Africa, p. 563, German Translation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. Behold now behemoth] The word behemoth is the plural of behemah, which signifies cattle in general, or graminivorous animals, as distinguished from chayetho, all wild or carnivorous animals. See Ge 1:24. The former seems to mean kine, horses, asses, sheep, c., and all employed in domestic or agricultural matters the latter, all wild and savage beasts, such as lions, bears, tigers, c.: but the words are not always taken in these senses.
In this place it has been supposed to mean some animal of the beeve kind. The Vulgate retains the Hebrew name so do the Syriac and Arabic. The Chaldee is indefinite, translating creature or animal. And the Septuagint is not more explicit, translating by , beasts or wild beasts; and old Coverdale, the cruell beaste, perhaps as near to the truth as any of them. From the name, therefore, or the understanding had of it by the ancient versions, we can derive no assistance relative to the individuality of the animal in question; and can only hope to find what it is by the characteristics it bears in the description here given of it.
These, having been carefully considered and deeply investigated both by critics and naturalists, have led to the conclusion that either the elephant, or the hippopotamus or river-horse, is the animal in question; and on comparing the characteristics between these two, the balance is considerably in favour of the hippopotamus. But even here there are still some difficulties, as there are some parts of the description which do not well suit even the hippopotamus; and therefore I have my doubts whether either of the animals above is that in question, or whether any animal now in existence be that described by the Almighty.
Mr. Good supposes, and I am of the same opinion, that the animal here described is now extinct. The skeletons of three lost genera have actually been found out: these have been termed palaeotherium, anoplotherium, and mastodon or mammoth. From an actual examination of a part of the skeleton of what is termed the mammoth, I have described it in my note, See Clarke on Ge 1:24.
As I do not believe that either the elephant or the river-horse is intended here, I shall not take up the reader’s time with any detailed description. The elephant is well known; and, though not an inhabitant of these countries, has been so often imported in a tame state, and so frequently occurs in exhibitions of wild beasts, that multitudes, even of the common people, have seen this tremendous, docile, and sagacious animal. Of the hippopotamus or river-horse, little is generally known but by description, as the habits of this animal will not permit him to be tamed. His amphibious nature prevents his becoming a constant resident on dry land.
The hippopotamus inhabits the rivers of Africa and the lakes of Ethiopia: feeds generally by night; wanders only a few miles from water; feeds on vegetables and roots of trees, but never on fish; lays waste whole plantations of the sugar-cane, rice, and other grain. When irritated or wounded, it will attack boats and men with much fury. It moves slowly and heavily: swims dexterously; walks deliberately and leisurely over head into the water; and pursues his way, even on all fours, on the bottom; but cannot remain long under the water without rising to take in air. It sleeps in reedy places; has a tremendous voice, between the lowing of an ox and the roaring of the elephant. Its head is large; its mouth, very wide; its skin, thick and almost devoid of hair; and its tail, naked and about a foot long. It is nearly as large as the elephant, and some have been found seventeen feet long. Mr. Good observes: “Both the elephant and hippopotamus are naturally quiet animals; and never interfere with the grazing of others of different kinds unless they be irritated. The behemoth, on the contrary, is represented as a quadruped of a ferocious nature, and formed for tyranny, if not rapacity; equally lord of the floods and of the mountains; rushing with rapidity of foot, instead of slowness or stateliness; and possessing a rigid and enormous tail, like a cedar tree, instead of a short naked tail of about a foot long, as the hippopotamus; or a weak, slender, hog-shaped tail, as the elephant.”
The mammoth, for size, will answer the description in this place, especially Job 40:19: He is the chief of the ways of God. That to which the part of a skeleton belonged which I examined, must have been, by computation, not less than twenty-five feet high, and sixty feet in length! The bones of one toe I measured, and found them three feet in length! One of the very smallest grinders of an animal of this extinct species, full of processes on the surface more than an inch in depth, which shows that the animal had lived on flesh, I have just now weighed, and found it, in its very dry state, four pounds eight ounces, avoirdupois: the same grinder of an elephant I have weighed also, and found it just two pounds. The mammoth, therefore, from this proportion, must have been as large as two elephants and a quarter. We may judge by this of its size: elephants are frequently ten and eleven feet high; this will make the mammoth at least twenty-five or twenty-six feet high; and as it appears to have been a many-toed animal, the springs which such a creature could make must have been almost incredible: nothing by swiftness could have escaped its pursuit. God seems to have made it as the proof of his power; and had it been prolific, and not become extinct, it would have depopulated the earth. Creatures of this kind must have been living in the days of Job; the behemoth is referred to here, as if perfectly and commonly known.
He eateth grass as an ox.] This seems to be mentioned as something remarkable in this animal: that though from the form of his teeth he must have been carnivorous, yet he ate grass as an ox; he lived both on animal and vegetable food.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
That some particular beast is designed by this word is evident from Job 40:15, and from the peculiar characters given to him, which are not common to all great beasts. But what it is is matter of some dispute amount the learned. The generality of them are agreed that this is the elephant, and the following leviathan the whale; which being two of the goodliest and vastest creatures which God made, the one of the land, the other of the sea, and withal such to whom the description here given for the most part manifestly agrees, and the like is presumed concerning the rest, may seem to be here intended. And the difficulty of reconciling some few passages to them, may arise either from our ignorance of them, or from the different nature and qualities of creatures of the same general kind in divers parts. But some late and very learned men take the leviathan to be the crocodile, and the behemoth to be a creature called the hippopotamus, which may seem fitly to be joined with the crocodile, both being very well known to Job and his friends, as being frequent in the adjacent parts, both amphibious, living and preying both in the water and upon the land, and both being creatures of great bulk and strength. I shall not undertake to determine the controversy, but shall show how each part of the following description is or may be applied to them severally. And this being no point concerning faith or a good life, every one may take the more liberty to understand the place of one or other of them.
Which I made with thee; either,
1. Upon the earth, where thou art, whereas the leviathan is in the sea. Or,
2. As I made thee, for this Hebrew particle is oft used as a note of comparison, as Job 9:26; Psa 143:7, and elsewhere; in the same manner, and upon the same day. Whereby he may intimate, that being equally the Creator and sovereign Lord, both of Job, and of this behemoth, he had equal right to dispose of them in such manner as he thought meet. Or, (nigh, as the particle oft signifies,) unto thee, i.e. in a place not far from thee, to wit, in the river Nile, where the hippopotamus, as well as the crocodile, doth principally abide. But although those creatures were now in the river, yet they were made elsewhere, even where the first man was made. He eateth grass as an ox: This is mentioned as a thing strange and remarkable, as indeed it is; either,
1. Of the elephant, in which God hath wisely and mercifully planted this disposition, that he should not prey upon other creatures, which if he had, being so strong and vast a creature, he must needs have been very pernicious to them, but feed upon grass as an ox doth. Or,
2. Of the hippopotamus; of whom historians relate that he comes out of the river upon the land to feed upon corn, and hay, or grass, as an ox doth, to whom also he is not unlike in the forth of his head and feet, and in the bigness of his body, whence the Italians call him the sea ox.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15-24. God shows that if Jobcannot bring under control the lower animals (of which he selects thetwo most striking, behemoth on land, leviathan in the water), muchless is he capable of governing the world.
behemothThedescription in part agrees with the hippopotamus, in part with theelephant, but exactly in all details with neither. It is rather apoetical personification of the great Pachydermata, orHerbivora (so “he eateth grass”), the idea of thehippopotamus being predominant. In Job40:17, “the tail like a cedar,” hardly applies to thelatter (so also Job 40:20;Job 40:23, “Jordan,” ariver which elephants alone could reach, but see on Job40:23). On the other hand, Job 40:21;Job 40:22 are characteristic ofthe amphibious river horse. So leviathan (the twistinganimal), Job 41:1, is ageneralized term for cetacea, pythons, saurians of the neighboringseas and rivers, including the crocodile, which is the mostprominent, and is often associated with the river horse by oldwriters. “Behemoth” seems to be the Egyptian Pehemout,“water-ox,” Hebraized, so-called as being like an ox,whence the Italian bombarino.
with theeas I madethyself. Yet how great the difference! The manifold wisdom andpower of God!
he eateth grassmarvellousin an animal living so much in the water; also strange, that such amonster should not be carnivorous.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Behold, now behemoth,…. The word is plural, and signifies beasts, and may be used to denote the chiefest and largest of beasts, and therefore is commonly understood of the elephant; and certain it is that a single beast is described in the following account, and so the word is rendered, Ps 73:22; The word is here rendered by the Septuagint , “beasts”; which is the word used by the Greeks c for elephants as “belluae”, a word of the same signification, is by the Latins d: and so the Sabines called an elephant “barrus”, and the Indians “barro” e, , a “beast”; and it may be observed, that ivory is called “shenhabbim”, 1Ki 10:22; that is, “shenhabehim”, “behem” or “behemoth” f, the tooth of the beast: and it may be also observed, that Seneca g says, that the Nile produces beasts like the sea; meaning particularly the crocodile and hippopotamus. Bochart dissents from the commonly received opinion of the elephant being meant; and thinks the “hippopotamus”, or river horse, is intended so called from its having a head like a horse; and is said to have a mane, and to neigh like one, and to bear some resemblance to it in its snout, eyes, ears, and back h. And the reasons that celebrated author has given for this his opinion have prevailed on many learned men to follow him; and there are some things in the description of behemoth, as will be observed, which seem better to agree with the river horse than with the elephant. It is an amphibious creature, and sometimes lives upon the land, and sometimes in the water; and by various i writers is often called a beast and four footed one:
which I made with thee; or as well as thee; it being equally the work of my hands, a creature as thou art: or made on the continent, as than art, so Aben Ezra; and made on the same day man was made; which those observe, who understand it of the elephant; or, which cometh nearest to thee, the elephant being, as Pliny k says, the nearest to man in sense; and no beast more prudent, as Cicero l affirms. But the above learned writer, who interprets it of the river horse, takes the meaning of this phrase to be; that it was a creature in Job’s neighbourhood, an inhabitant of the river Nile in Egypt, to which Arabia joined, where Job lived; which is testified by many writers m: and therefore it is thought more probable that a creature near at hand, and known should be instanced in, and not one that it may be was never seen nor known by Job. But both Diodorus Siculus n and Strabo o speak of herds of elephants in Arabia, and of that as abounding: with them; and of various places called from them, and the hunting of them, and even of men from eating them;
he eateth grass as an one; which is true both of the elephant and of the river horse: that a land animal should eat grass is not so wonderful; but that a creature who lives in the water should come out of it and eat grass is very strange and worthy of admiration, it is observed: and that the river horse feeds in corn fields and on grass many writers p assure us; yea, in the river it feeds not on fishes, but on the roots of the water lily, which fishermen therefore use to bait their hooks with to take it. Nor is it unlike an ox in its shape, and in some parts of its body: hence the Italians call it “bomaris”, the “sea ox”; but it is double the size of an ox q. Olaus Magnus r speaks of a sea horse, found between Britain and Norway; which has the head of a horse, and neighs like one; has cloven feet with hoofs like a cow; and seeks its food both in the sea and on the land, and grows to the bigness of an ox, and has a forked tail like a fish.
(See Definition for 0930. Editor)
c Suidas in voce . Plutarch in Eumenc. d Terent. Eunuch. Act. 3. Sc. 1. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 3. e Isidor. Origin. l. 12, c. 2. Vid. Horat. Epod. 12. v. 1. f Hiller. Oaomastic, Sacr. p. 434. g Nat. Quaest. l. 4. c. 2. h Vid. lsidor. Origin. l. 12. c. 6. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 25. Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 2. c. 7. i Herodot. Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 71. Plin. ib. Ammian, Marcellin. l. 22. Leo African. Descript. African, l. 9. p. 758. k Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 1. l De Natur. Deor. l. 1. m Solin. Polyhist. c. 45. Aelian. de Animal. l. 5. c. 53. Philo de Praemiis, p. 924. Plin. Afric. ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 1.) n Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 136. & l. 3. p. 173, 174, 175. o Geograph. l. 16. p. 531, 533. p Diodor. Sic. l. 1. p. 31. Aelian. Plin. Solin. Ammian. ut supra. q Ludolf. Ethiop. Hist. l. 1. c. 11. r De Ritu Septent. Gent. l. 21. c. 26.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
15 Behold now the behmth,
Which I have made with thee:
He eateth grass like an ox.
16 Behold now, his strength is in his loins,
And his force in the sinews of his belly.
17 He bendeth his tail like a cedar branch,
The sinews of his legs are firmly interwoven.
18 His bones are like tubes of brass,
His bones like bars of iron.
(after the manner of the intensive plur. , , which play the part of the abstract termination), which sounds like a plur., but without the numerical plural signification, considered as Hebrew, denotes the beast , or the giant of beasts, is however Hebraized from the Egyptian p – ehe – mau , ( muau ), i.e., the ( p) ox ( ehe ) of the water ( mau as in the Hebraized proper name ). It is, as Bochart has first of all shown, the so-called river or Nile horse, Hippopotamus amphibius (in Isa 30:6, , as emblem of Egypt, which extends its power, and still is active in the interest of others), found in the rivers of Africa, but no longer found in the Nile, which is not inappropriately called a horse; the Arab. water-hog is better, Italian bomarino, Eng. sea-cow ?, like the Egyptian p – ehe – mau . The change of p and b in the exchange of Egyptian and Semitic words occurs also elsewhere, e.g., pug’ and , harpu and ( ), Apriu and (according to Lauth). Nevertheless p – ehe – mau (not mau – t , for what should the post-positive fem. art. do here?) is first of all only the translated back again into the Egyptian by Jablonsky; an instance in favour of this is still wanting. In Hieroglyph the Nile-horse is called apet ; it was honoured as divine. Brugsch dwelt in Thebes in the temple of the Apet.
(Note: In the astronomical representations the hippopotamus is in the neighbourhood of the North Pole in the place of the dragon of the present day, and bears the name of hes-mut, in which mut = t . mau , “the mother.” Hes however is obscure; Birch explains it by: raging.)
In Job 40:15 signifies nothing but “with thee,” so that thou hast it before thee. This water-ox eats , green grass, like an ox. That it prefers to plunder the produce of the fields – in Arab. chadr signifies, in particular, green barley – is accordingly self-evident. Nevertheless, it has gigantic strength, viz., in its plump loins and in the sinews ( , properly the firm constituent parts,
(Note: Staring from its primary signification (made firm, fast), Arab. srr , can signify e.g., also things put together from wood: a throne, a hand-barrow, bedstead and cradle, metaphor. the foundation. Wetzst. otherwise: “The are not the sinews and muscles, still less ‘the private parts’ of others, but the four bearers of the animal body = arkan el – batn , viz., the bones of the , Job 40:16, together with the two shoulder-blades. The Arab. sarr is that on which a thing is supported or rests, on which it stands firmly, or moves about. Neshwn (i. 280) says: sarr is the substratum on which a thing rests,’ and the sarr er – ra’s , says the same, is the place where the head rests upon the nape of the neck. The Kms gives the same signification primo loco , which shows that it is general; then follows in gen. Arab. mudtaja , “the support of a thing.”)
therefore: ligaments and muscles) of its clumsy belly. The brush of a tail, short in comparison with the monster itself, is compared to a cedar (a branch of it), ratione glabritiei, rotunditatis, spissitudinis et firmitatis (Bochart); since the beast is in general almost without hair, it looks like a stiff, naked bone, and yet it can bend it like an elastic cedar branch; is Hebraeo-Arab., hfd
(Note: Wetzst. otherwise: One may compare the Arab. chafada , fut. i, to hold, sit, lie motionless (in any place), from which the signification of desiring, longing, has been developed, since in the Semitic languages the figure of fixing ( taalluq ) the heard and the eye on any desired object is at the basis of this notion (wherefore such verbs are joined with the praep. ). According to this, it is to be explained, “his tail is motionless like (the short and thick stem of) The cedar,” for the stunted tail of an animal is a mark of its strength to a Semite. In 1860, as I was visiting the neighbouring mountain fortress of el-Hosn with the octogenarian Fjd, the sheikh of Fk in Gln, we rode past Fjd’s ploughmen; and as one of them was letting his team go slowly along, the sheikh cried out to him from a distance: Faster! faster! They (the steers, which thou ploughest) are not oxen weak with age, nor are they the dower of a widow (who at her second marriage receives only a pair of weak wretched oxen from her father or brother); but they are heifers (3-4 year-old steers) with stiffly raised tails ( wadhujuluhin muqashmare , an intensive or comp. , Job 21:23).)
is a word used directly of the bending of wood ( el – ud ).
Since this description, like the whole book of Job, is so strongly Arabized, , Job 40:17, will also be one word with the Arab. fachidh , the thigh; as the Arabic version also translates: uruku afchadhihi (the veins or strings of its thigh). The Targ., retaining the word of the text here,
(Note: Another Targ., which translates , penis et testiculi ejus , vid., Aruch s.v. .)
has in Lev 21:20 for , a testicle, prop. inguina , the groins; we interpret: the sinews of its thighs or legs
(Note: According to Fleischer, fachidh signifies properly the thick-leg (= thigh), from the root fach , with the general signification of being puffed out, swollen, thick.)
are intertwined after the manner of intertwined vine branches, .
(Note: In the choice of the word , the mushagarat ed – dawal (from = ), “the interweaving of the vine branches” was undoubtedly before the poet’s eye; comp. Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xi. 477: “On all sides in this delightful corner of the earth (the Ghta) the vine left to itself, in diversified ramifications, often a dozen branches resembling so many huge snakes entangled together, swings to and fro upon the shining stem of the lofty white poplar.” And ib. S. 491: “a twisted vine almost the thickness of a man, as though formed of rods of iron (comp. Job 40:18).”)
But why is pointed thus, and not (as e.g., )? It is either an Aramaizing (with it has another relationship) pointing of the plur., or rather, as Khler has perceived, a regularly-pointed dual (like ), from (like ), which is equally suitable in connection with the signification femora as testiculi . , Job 40:18, is also Hebraeo-Arab.; for Arab. mtl signifies to forge, or properly to extend by forging (hammering), and to lengthen, undoubtedly a secondary formation of , tala , to be long, as makuna of kana , madana of dana , massara (to found a fortified city) of sara , chiefly (if not always) by the intervention of such nouns as makan , medne , misr (= ), therefore in the present instance by the intervention of this metl (= memtul )
(Note: The noun is also found in the Lexicon of Neshwn, i. 63: “ is equivalent to , viz., that which is hammered out in length, used of iron and other metals; and one says of a piece of iron that has been hammered for the purpose of stretching it.” The verb Neshwn explains: “ said of iron signifies to stretch it that it may become long.” The verb can be regarded as a fusion of the root ( , , comp. , and Arab. mut Beduin: to take long steps) with the root , to be long. – Wetzst. The above explanation of the origin of the verb seems to us more probable.)
whence probably (metal), properly iron in bars or rods, therefore metal in a wrought state, although not yet finished.
(Note: Ibn-Koreisch in Pinsker, Likkute, p. , explains it without exactness by sebikat hadd , which signifies a smelted and formed piece of iron.)
Its bones are like tubes of brass, its bones ( , the more Aram. word) like forged rods of iron – what an appropriate description of the comparatively thin but firm as iron skeleton by which the plump mass of flesh of the gigantic boar-like grass-eater is carried!
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Description of Behemoth. | B. C. 1520. |
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
God, for the further proving of his own power and disproving of Job’s pretensions, concludes his discourse with the description of two vast and mighty animals, far exceeding man in bulk and strength, one he calls behemoth, the other leviathan. In these verses we have the former described. “Behold now behemoth, and consider whether thou art able to contend with him who made that beast and gave him all the power he has, and whether it is not thy wisdom rather to submit to him and make thy peace with him.” Behemoth signifies beasts in general, but must here be meant of some one particular species. Some understand it of the bull; others of an amphibious animal, well known (they say) in Egypt, called the river-horse (hippopotamus), living among the fish in the river Nile, but coming out to feed upon the earth. But I confess I see no reason to depart from the ancient and most generally received opinion, that it is the elephant that is here described, which is a very strong stately creature, of very large stature above any other, of wonderful sagacity, and of so great a reputation in the animal kingdom that among so many four-footed beasts as we have had the natural history of (ch. xxxviii. and xxxix.) we can scarcely suppose this should be omitted. Observe,
I. The description here given of the behemoth.
1. His body is very strong and well built. His strength is in his loins, v. 16. His bones, compared with those of other creatures, are like bars of iron, v. 18. His back-bone is so strong that, though his tail be not large, yet he moves it like a cedar, with a commanding force, v. 17. Some understand it of the trunk of the elephant, for the word signifies any extreme part, and in that there is indeed a wonderful strength. So strong is the elephant in his back and loins, and the sinews of his thighs, that he will carry a large wooden tower, and a great number of fighting men in it. No animal whatsoever comes near the elephant for strength of body, which is the main thing insisted on in this description.
2. He feeds on the productions of the earth and does not prey upon other animals: He eats grass as an ox (v. 15), the mountains bring him forth food (v. 20), and the beasts of the field do not tremble before him nor flee from him, as from a lion, but they play about him, knowing they are in no danger from him. This may give us occasion, (1.) To acknowledge the goodness of God in ordering it so that a creature of such bulk, which requires so much food, should not feed upon flesh (for then multitudes must die to keep him alive), but should be content with the grass of the field, to prevent such destruction of lives as otherwise must have ensued. (2.) To commend living upon herbs and fruits without flesh, according to the original appointment of man’s food, Gen. i. 29. Even the strength of an elephant, as of a horse and an ox, may be supported without flesh; and why not that of a man? Though therefore we use the liberty God has allowed us, yet be not among riotous eaters of flesh, Prov. xxiii. 20. (3.) To commend a quiet and peaceable life. Who would not rather, like the elephant, have his neighbours easy and pleasant about him, than, like the lion, have them all afraid of him?
3. He lodges under the shady trees (v. 21), which cover him with their shadow (v. 22), where he has a free and open air to breathe in, while lions, which live by prey, when they would repose themselves, are obliged to retire into a close and dark den, to live therein, and to abide in the covert of that, ch. xxxviii. 40. Those who are a terror to others cannot but be sometimes a terror to themselves too; but those will be easy who will let others be easy about them; and the reed and fens, and the willows of the brook, though a very weak and slender fortification, yet are sufficient for the defence and security of those who therefore dread no harm, because they design none.
4. That he is a very great and greedy drinker, not of wine or strong drink (to be greedy of that is peculiar to man, who by his drunkenness makes a beast of himself), but of fair water. (1.) His size is prodigious, and therefore he must have supply accordingly, v. 23. He drinks so much that one would think he could drink up a river, if you would give him time, and not hasten him. Or, when he drinks, he hasteth not, as those do that drink in fear; he is confident of his own strength and safety, and therefore makes no haste when he drinks, no more haste than good speed. (2.) His eye anticipates more than he can take; for, when he is very thirsty, having been long kept without water, he trusts that he can drink up Jordan in his mouth, and even takes it with his eyes, v. 24. As a covetous man causes his eyes to fly upon the wealth of this world, which he is greedy of, so this great beast is said to snatch, or draw up, even a river with his eyes. (3.) His nose has in it strength enough for both; for, when he goes greedily to drink with it, he pierces through snares or nets, which perhaps are laid in the waters to catch fish. He makes nothing of the difficulties that lie in his way, so great is his strength and so eager his appetite.
II. The use that is to be made of this description. We have taken a view of this mountain of a beast, this over-grown animal, which is here set before us, not merely as a show (as sometimes it is in our country) to satisfy our curiosity and to amuse us, but as an argument with us to humble ourselves before the great God; for, 1. He made this vast animal, which is so fearfully and wonderfully made; it is the work of his hands, the contrivance of his wisdom, the production of his power; it is behemoth which I made, v. 15. Whatever strength this, or any other creature, has, it is derived from God, who therefore must be acknowledged to have all power originally and infinitely in himself, and such an arm as it is not for us to contest with. This beast is here called the chief, in its kind, of the ways of God (v. 19), an eminent instance of the Creator’s power and wisdom. Those that will peruse the accounts given by historians of the elephant will find that his capacities approach nearer to those of reason than the capacities of any other brute-creature whatsoever, and therefore he is fitly called the chief of the ways of God, in the inferior part of the creation, no creature below man being preferable to him. 2. He made him with man, as he made other four-footed beasts, on the same day with man (Gen 1:25; Gen 1:26), whereas the fish and fowl were made the day before; he made him to live and move on the same earth, in the same element, and therefore man and beast are said to be jointly preserved by divine Providence as fellow-commoners, Ps. xxxvi. 6. “It is behemoth, which I made with thee; I made that beast as well as thee, and he does not quarrel with me; why then dost thou? Why shouldst thou demand peculiar favours because I made thee (ch. x. 9), when I made the behemoth likewise with thee? I made thee as well as that beast, and therefore can as easily manage thee at pleasure as that beast, and will do it whether thou refuse or whether thou choose. I made him with thee, that thou mayest look upon him and receive instruction.” We need not go far for proofs and instances of God’s almighty power and sovereign dominion; they are near us, they are with us, they are under our eye wherever we are. 3. He that made him can make his sword to approach to him (v. 19), that is, the same hand that made him, notwithstanding his great bulk and strength, can unmake him again at pleasure and kill an elephant as easily as a worm or a fly, without any difficulty, and without the imputation either of waste or wrong. God that gave to all the creatures their being may take away the being he gave; for may he not do what he will with his own? And he can do it; he that has power to create with a word no doubt has power to destroy with a word, and can as easily speak the creature into nothing as at first he spoke it out of nothing. The behemoth perhaps is here intended (as well as the leviathan afterwards) to represent those proud tyrants and oppressors whom God had just now challenged Job to abase and bring down. They think themselves as well fortified against the judgments of God as the elephant with his bones of brass and iron; but he that made the soul of man knows all the avenues to it, and can make the sword of justice, his wrath, to approach to it, and touch it in the most tender and sensible part. He that framed the engine, and put the parts of it together, knows how to take it in pieces. Woe to him therefore that strives with his Maker, for he that made him has therefore power to make him miserable, and will not make him happy unless he will be ruled by him.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
2. Jehovah relates more marvels of his creation. (Job. 40:15Job. 41:34)
TEXT 40:1524
15 Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee;
He eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins,
And his force is in the muscles of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar:
The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 His bones are as tubes of brass;
His limbs are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God:
He only that made him giveth him his sword.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food,
Where all the beasts of the field do play.
21 He lieth under the lotus-trees,
In the covert of the reed, and the fen.
22 The lotus-trees cover him with their shade;
The willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, if a river overflow, he trembleth not;
He is confident, though a Jordan swell even to his mouth.
24 Shall any take him when he is on the watch,
Or pierce through his nose with a snare?
COMMENT 40:1524
Job. 40:15All of the previous animals and birds which appeared in the first speech are Palestinian. Behemoth has been identified as the hippopotamus, whose habitat is the Nile Valley. Behemoth is probably a loan word from the Egyptian for water horse, but there is no example of this claim from either Coptic or Egyptian. The Hebrew plural form perhaps expresses the plural of majesty meaning large animal. The root of the word is the common noun for cattle or beastPsa. 8:8; Psa. 73:22; Joe. 1:20; and Hab. 2:17.[392] The powerful giant is a creature like Job. In many ways he is more powerful than Job, but he does not criticize Yahweh for His unjust governing of the universe.
[392] These verses sustain no mythological interpretation, though it has long been claimed that both Behemoth and Leviathan have mythological implications, especially since H. Gunkels Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 57, 61ff, and especially since the availability of the Ugaritic literature. In Intertestamental Literature the beasts appear in eschatological imageryEnoch Job. 40:7-9; IV Ezra 6:4952; and The Apocalypse of Baruch, XXIV, 4; see D. W. Thomas, Vetus Testamentum, 1953, pp. 209224; P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der judischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1934; and my New Testament Theology syllabus, The Theology of Promise on eschatology.
Job. 40:16This description clearly stresses the sexual vigor of this enormous beast. For both man and beast, the loins were image of strength of potencyDeu. 33:11; Psa. 69:23; Nah. 2:1. The dual form of thighs is a euphemism which is rendered as strength is in his loins in A. V.Pro. 31:17. The muscles of the belly are particularly strong in the hippopotamus.
Job. 40:17The A. V. rendering of part of the first line makes little sense, i.e., He moves his tail like a cedar. The tail of this animal is very small, hardly appropriate for the express purposes of this image. The verb translated as moveth in the A. V. means to make stiff. There is no reason to miss the point that this is a phallic symbol, with absolutely no necessary Freudian implications. The thighs (Heb. esek) also have sexual connotation. The imagery projects the strong virility of the animal.
Job. 40:18His bones or limbs are like tubes or bars. The parallelism contains the synonym bones which is Hebrew and limb which is AramaicJob. 39:5.
Job. 40:19Perhaps the first line refers to Gen. 1:24 where the first animal created is said to be the behemah, i.e., cattle or beast. The word rendered chief in the A. V. is rosh and also appears in Pro. 8:22, with regard to wisdom. In the Intertestamental Literature, Enoch Job. 40:7-9; Apocalypse of Baruch 24:4; and IV Ezra 6:4952, Behemoth is a special creation of God, but not so in this Jobian passage. The last line of the verse makes little sense, either in Hebrew or as rendered in the A. V. Perhaps the sword refers to his chiseledged tusks which the hippopotamus uses to attack its enemies.
Job. 40:20But the habitat of the Behemoth is marshland and water, not the mountains. Perhaps the reference is to the vegetables produced in the mountainous areas, which is the understanding of the R. S. V. In the upper valley of the Nile, vegetation is abundant on the hillsides.
Job. 40:21The animal rests under the water lily. The Egyptian specie is stronger and taller than the one found in Syria. Perhaps this is the thorny shrub which flourishes from Syria to North Africa in the damp hot areas. The word rendered lotus tree is used only here and Job. 40:22.[393] The imagery might suggest an Egyptian habitatPsa. 68:31 and Isa. 19:6.
[393] For discussion of this specie, see P. Humbert, Zeitschrift far alttestamentischen Wissenschaft. 19491950, p. 206.
Job. 40:22The word wadi (nahal)[394] more strongly suggests Palestine than Egypt, but Behemoth has a wide range of movement Lev. 23:40; Isa. 15:7; Isa. 44:4; and Psa. 137:2.
[394] G. Haas, Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental Research, 1953, pp. 30ff, offers evidence that the hippopotamus was found in certain coastal areas in Palestine during the Iron Age.
Job. 40:23When the flash flood comes to the wadi, he is in complete controlhe trembleth not. Dhorme mentions the buffalo, though he accepts the hippopotamus, who can be observed on the banks of Lake Huleh with only his muzzle above the surface of the water. Some find difficulty in that this verse mentions the Jordan, some distance from Egypt, and attempts to amend to yeor, the Nile. This is as unnecessary as it is impossible. See footnote below for evidence of the presence of the hippopotamus in Palestine during the Iron Age.
Job. 40:24Who can capture Behemoth when he is on the alert? Though there is no interrogative in the verse, this seems to be its meaning. Dhorme provides insight into the imagery from a reference in Herodotus, 11.70, who mentions a process of controlling crocodiles by covering their eyes with mud. The word (moqesim) rendered pierce in A. V. usually means snare or trap. But pierce is inappropriate for either one. Slight emendation yields barbs or thorns, which is followed by both Pope and Dhorme.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(15) Behemoth.The identification of behemoth has always been a great difficulty with commentators. The word in Hebrew is really the natural plural of behmh, which means domestic cattle; and this fact would suggest the idea that more than one animal may be meant in the description (Job. 40:15-24), which scarcely seems to answer to one and the same. In this way the Job. 40:15-20 would describe very well the elephant, and Job. 40:21-24 the hippopotamus. The objection to this is, that behmh is commonly used of domestic cattle in contrast to wild beasts, whereas neither the elephant nor the hippopotamus can come under the category of domestic animals. There is a word in Coptic (p-ehe-emmou, meaning water-ox), used for the hippopotamus, which may, perhaps, lie concealed in behemoth. Then the difficulty is to make the description answer throughout to the hippopotamus (e.g., Job. 40:20), since the hippopotamus does not frequent mountains, neither does it exactly eat grass like an ox (Job. 40:15).
Which I made with thee.Fellow-creatures of thine, to inhabit the world with thee: thus skilfully reminding him that he had a common origin with the beasts.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Second division A HUMILIATING DESCRIPTION OF TWO AMPHIBIOUS MONSTERS, IN PHYSICAL STRENGTH VASTLY JOB’S SUPERIORS, BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN, WHICH IN MANY RESPECTS RESEMBLE EACH OTHER, BUT IN HABITS AND MODE OF LIFE RADICALLY DIFFER, Job 40:15 to Job 41:34; a carrying forward of the main thought of chap. 39. See p. 252.
Strophe a. FIRST: BEHEMOTH, FIRSTLING OF THE WAYS OF GOD, MIGHTY IN HIS STRENGTH AND MARTIAL IN HIS CONSTRUCTION, BUT A PEACEFUL COMPANION OF THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD, Job 40:15-24.
These and similar contrarieties, which Job 40:15 in brief sets forth, and which also antedate Job’s puny arrival in the world, he may enter side by side with his perplexities of providence, and first attempt their solution.
a. A physical description of this wonderful animal, Job 40:15-18.
15. Behold now behemoth See Excursus VIII, page 274. The transition is easy, as even Dillmann acknowledges, notwithstanding he doubts the authenticity of the entire section. Delitzsch thus links it with the preceding appeal: “Try it only for once this is the collective thought to act like me in the execution of penal justice, I would praise thee. That he cannot do it, and yet ventures with his short-sightedness and feebleness to charge God’s rule with injustice, the following pictures of foreign animals are now further intended to make evident to him.” There is, we think, a deeper spiritual relationship between the solemn challenge and the behemoth-leviathanistic section, than Delitzsch recognises. That Job is not mighty to save, but helplessly impotent in spiritual matters, God proceeds forcibly to impress upon his mind by a view of two monsters of the brute creation, who despise and defy the power of man. Before Job makes himself bold to take the moral government of the world into his hands, he might better try his strength upon the controlling and subduing of some of the creatures God has made. Let him first take a view of himself in the mirror of the animal creation “a mirror of morals, now warning, now encouraging and shaming us; a gallery of pictures, ethical and hortatory, collected for men by God himself.” Zockler. The fathers, and some moderns, have given a spiritual interpretation to these lengthened descriptions, and found in behemoth and leviathan a figurative representation of our ghostly enemy himself. The most of recent commentators, however, see in this divine portraiture of these two creatures a setting forth of God’s infinite power to carry out the purposes of his providence. If the power and wisdom blended together in the creation of such ugly, huge, and repulsive beings, are infinitely beyond Job’s comprehension, how much more that providence which embraces all earthly creatures, all existence, and every grade of being, superhuman and angelic.
Made with thee A similar form of expression appears in Ecc 2:16; How dieth the wise? with the fool! i.e., as well as the fool. A pertinent rebuke to Job’s pride. This monster is God’s creature no less than Job, and in some respects vastly Job’s superior.
He eateth grass The marvel is, that so powerful an animal, instead of being carnivorous, should be strictly graminivorous. In his frequent inland excursions at night he makes sad havoc among the rice-fields and the cultivated grounds along the Nile. “At every turn,” says Gordon Cummings, p. 297, “there occurred deep, still pools, and occasionally sandy islands, densely clad with lofty reeds. Above and beyond these reeds stood trees of immense age, beneath which grew a rank kind of grass on which the sea-cow [hippopotamus] delights to pasture.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
God Describes Behemoth to Job (Historical Study on “Behemoth”) – In Job 40:15-24 God describes to Job the greatest land animal under His creation, which in Hebrew is called “behemoth” ( ) (H930). Efforts to identify this creature continue into the present day. The oldest witnesses are found in the writings of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha, which refer to Leviathan and Behemoth as two, somewhat mythological creatures ( 1 Enoch 60.7-9, 23-24, 4 Ezra 49-52, 2 Baruch 29.4). The tradition of Jewish rabbis reflects this mythological idea about these two creatures ( The Targum of Jonathan, Gen 1:21, The Targum on Psa 50:10, Isa 27:1). The LXX translates the Hebrew word “behemoth” into the Greek ( ) “wild beasts.” Adam Clarke tells us the Vulgate, Syriac and Arabic versions transliterate the Hebrew name “behemoth,” and he points out that the old English translations of the Scriptures are of no help in determining this creature’s identity. [49] For example, the Wycliffite Version (1381) reads “behemot,” [50] The Coverdale Bible (1535) reads “the cruell beaste,” [51] and The Geneva Bible (1560) reads, “behemoth.” [52] Matthew Henry notes that the most ancient Church tradition ascribes it to the elephant. [53] John Gill gives a lengthy discussion for the elephant. [54] However, with the development of comparative philology emerging out of the Renaissance, word studies favor a different animal. Modern scholarship suggests an Egyptian origin to this Hebrew word, meaning “water ox,” “Nile horse,” or “hippopotamus.” BDB (1906) says it refers to the hippopotamus, with the origin “from an (assumed) Egyptian p-ehemau, “ox of the water.” Therefore, most modern lexicons, dictionaries and commentators define “behemoth” as the hippopotamus ( Watson, [1833], Gesenius [1834], Barr [1837], BTD [1854], Smith [1863], Eadie [1872], Zckler [1872], [55] Strong [1896], Baker [2003]). However, this modern view is not exclusive. Driver (ICC), who is not alone in his view, denies this Egyptian word origin and translates it as “a colossal beast”. [56] Holladay (1971) suggests either the hippopotamus or crocodile. The TWOT (1980) favors the hippopotamus, but allows for another creature. Because of the description of a large tail that fits neither an elephant nor hippopotamus (Job 40:17), some suggest that “behemoth” refers to an extinct land creature (Good) [57] , perhaps a mammoth (Clarke) [58] , or a dinosaur, such as diplodocus or brachiosaurus ( BDB).
[49] Adam Clarke, Job to Solomon, vol. 3, in The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, 6 vols. (London: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1836), 1895.
[50] Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden, editors, The Books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon According to the Wycliffite Version made by Nicholas de Hereford About A.D. 1381 and Revised by John Purvey About A.D. 1388 ( Oxford: The Clarendon Press, c1850, 1881), 54-5.
[51]
[52] The Bible: That is the Holy Scriptures Contained in the Old and New Testament. London: Robert Barker, c1560, 1615.
[53] Matthew Henry, Job, in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Job 40:15. For example, Robertson’s Compendious Hebrew Dictionary (c1654) says behemoth refers to the elephant.
[54] John Gill, Job, in John Gill’s Expositor, in OnLine Bible, v. 2.0 [CD-ROM] (Nederland: Online Bible Foundation, 1992-2005), notes on Job 40:15.
[55] Otto Zckler, The Book of Job, trans. by L. J. Evans, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1872), 619.
[56] S. R. Driver and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, vol. 2, in The International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921), 326.
[57] John M. Good, The Book of Job, Literally Translated From the Original Hebrew and Restored to its Natural Arrangement, (London: Bronxbourn, 1812), 476.
[58] Adam Clarke, Job to Solomon, vol. 3, in The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, 6 vols. (London: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1836), 1895.
The Elephant The view of the elephant does not fit the entire description of behemoth. Although this beast is the largest land animal today (Job 40:16-19), he does not eat grass like the ox (Job 40:15), nor have a tail like a cedar (Job 40:17). Although he plays in the rivers, he does not hide in the river under the lotuses (Job 40:21-22).
The Hippopotamus The view of the hippopotamus does not fit the entire description of behemoth. This beast does feed on grass like the ox (Job 40:15), and is extremely large (Job 40:16-19). However, he does not have a tail like a cedar (Job 40:17), nor is he large enough to be considered the chief of the ways of God (Job 40:19). He can hide in the rivers under the lotuses (Job 40:21-22), and is not disturbed by a raging river (Job 40:23), and would be difficult to capture (Job 40:24).
The Crocodile – The view of the crocodile does not fit the entire description of behemoth. He does have a large tail (Job 40:17), and he can hide in the river under the lotuses (Job 40:21-22), and is not disturbed by a raging river (Job 40:23). However, he does not feed on grass like the ox (Job 40:15). Crocodiles can be large, and fossil records testify that they grew much larger, but he is not the largest land beast (Job 40:19).
The Dinosaur The suggestion that “behemoth” most closely describes one of the largest plant-eating land dinosaurs is the view that I favor since the testimony of fossil records is a relatively recent consideration in biblical scholarship, and this beast most closely fits the description of the biblical text in Job 40:15-24. The plant-eating dinosaurs would have eaten grass like an ox (Job 40:15). The largest species, brachiosaurus and the titanosaurians, would best fit the description of enormous size described in Job 40:16-19. These dinosaurs had tails like a cedar (Job 40:17), and were the largest land animals every created by God (Job 40:19). They could have hidden in larger rivers from predators (Job 40:21-22), and would not have been afraid of flooding rivers (Job 40:23). This beast would have been difficult to capture (Job 40:24). A dinosaur does not have stones, or testicles (Job 40:17), but this Hebrew word is best translated “thighs”, which large size would have been a prominent characteristic of these large plant-eating dinosaurs.
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Job 40:15
[59] S. R. Driver and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, vol. 2, in The International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921), 326.
Job 40:15 “which I made with thee” Comments – Driver translates the Hebrew preposition ( ) with its personal pronoun to mean, “which is beside thee.” [60] This creature lived along side of mankind, so that the phrase means men could behold God’s glory and majesty through the testimony of these enormous creatures. If behemoth refers to a dinosaur, then modern science teaches that these huge creatures died millions of years ago. However, there is growing evidence from creation scientists that many dinosaurs lived concurrently with mankind. This would allow man to observe behemoth as a large dinosaur, a majestic creature that testified to God’s majesty.
[60] S. R. Driver and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, vol. 2, in The International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1921), 326.
Zckler gives the translation, “as well as thee,” interpreting the phrase to mean that God made behemoth as well as man; He made them both. He believes this phrase compares behemoth and man as both being created by the handiwork of God, with the intent of further revealing to Job his frailty and weakness in the midst of God’s creation. [61]
[61] Otto Zckler, The Book of Job, trans. by L. J. Evans, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1872), 619.
Job 40:15 “he eateth grass as an ox” Comments – This animal was not a fearsome predator, but a herbivore, which is normally docile when left to itself. These large vegetarians would have eaten enormous amounts of plant material in order to survive. It has been suggested by one creation scientist that God created the plant-eating dinosaurs in order to keep the large amount of vegetation in an ecological balance during the era before the Flood.
Within the context of this passage, the phrase “he eateth grass as an ox” is probably used to contrast the lower intelligence of this creature to man’s higher intelligence. God takes time to divinely provide for this simple-minded giant, so that he can prosper on earth, a feat that can only be orchestrated by God Himself. If God daily intervenes in the affairs of His marvelous creation, how much more is He watching over Job.
Job 40:16-19 Behemoth’s Physical Features Job 40:16-19 describes behemoth’s physical features. The focus upon the creature’s hindquarters and tail, and huge bones, being the largest creature made by God, leads me to support the view that behemoth was a large, plant-eating dinosaur.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:16
Job 40:16 Word Study on “the navel” Gesenius says the Hebrew word “navel” “ shariyr ” ( ) (H8306) means, “the firm part of the belly, i.e. the nerves, ligaments, muscles.” Strong says it means, “ a cord, i.e. (by analogy) sinew; a navel.” The TWOT says it means, “sinew, muscle.”
Job 40:16 Comments – The most pronounced features of the large plant-eating dinosaurs, such as the titanosaurians, or diplodocus and brachiosaurus, were the tremendous size of their rear loins and bellies. Thus, Job 40:16 begins describing behemoth with its most outstanding features.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Job 40:17
Job 40:17 “the sinews of his stones are wrapped together” – Word Study on “stones” Gesenius and TWOT say the Hebrew word “stones” “ pachad ” ( ) (H6344) means, “thighs.” Strong says this word means, “testicle, stone.” The Enhanced Strong says this Hebrew word is used once in the Old Testament Most modern English translations read “thighs.” ( ASV, Darby, NIV, RSV, YLT). The LXX reads, “navel.” Other English translations read “legs” ( BBE).
Job 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Job 40:19 Job 40:19
[62] Otto Zckler, The Book of Job, trans. by L. J. Evans, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1872), 620.
[63] Otto Zckler, The Book of Job, trans. by L. J. Evans, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1872), 620.
The tallest and heaviest dinosaur known today from good skeletal remains comes from the fossils of a Brachiosaurus brancai, discovered in Tanzania between 1907-12. This dinosaur has been mounted 39 feet tall and 74 feet long. It could have weighted up to 70,000 and 130,000 lb. when roaming on the earth. Partial remains of other larger dinosaurs suggest they may have reached 110 feet in length, some standing 59 feet tall, and others weighing up to 90 to 110 short tons. [64] Thus, the dinosaur was the “chief of God’s ways.”
[64] “Dinosaurs,” in The Free Encyclopedia (San Francisco, California: Wikipedia Foundation, Inc.) [on-line]; accessed 8 December 2008; available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur; Internet.
Job 40:19 “he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him” Comments – The meaning of the phrase “he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him” has been a challenge for scholars.
Job 40:20-24 Behemoth’s Behaviour While Job 40:16-19 described behemoth’s physical features, Job 40:20-24 describes his instinctive behaviour. Although the physical features most closely resembles a large plant-eating dinosaur, the creature’s behaviour clearly suggests the hippopotamus, since he grazes upon grass like an ox, and hides in the rivers. We do not know the behaviour patterns of the ancient dinosaurs, but we assume they could behave themselves in a similar fashion.
Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
Job 40:20
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
God Describes the Largest Animals in Creation – In Job 40:15 through Job 41:34 God describes the greatest land animal (Job 40:15-24), then the greatest animal of the sea in His divine creation (Job 41:1-34). The point of God describing these two majestic creatures is to point out to Job that if man cannot tame God’s creatures, neither can he overcome a contest against God. This passage further reveals to Job his frailty and weakness as one of God’s creatures.
The story of Leviathan and Behemoth are embedded in ancient Jewish mythology. The Jewish Pseudepigrapha refer to these two monsters on a number of occasions as figurative images of wickedness. According to ancient Jewish tradition, these two creatures were made on the fifth day of creation and are now reserved by God to be later used as a part of the fulfillment of their Messianic prophecies.
“And on that day were two monsters parted, a female monster named Leviathan, to dwell in the abysses of the ocean over the fountains of the waters. But the male is named Behemoth, who occupied with his breast a waste wilderness named Duidain, on the east of the garden where the elect and righteous dwell, where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created. And I besought the other angel that he should show me the might of those monsters, how they were parted on one day and cast, the one into the abysses of the sea, and the other unto the dry land of the wilderness.” ( 1 Enoch 60.7-9) [44]
[44] 1 Enoch, trans. R. H. Charles, ed. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 2:224.
“And these things I saw towards the Garden of the Righteous. And the angel of peace who was with me said to me: These two monsters, prepared conformably to the greatness of God, shall feed . . .” ( 1 Enoch 60.23-24) [45]
[45] 1 Enoch, trans. R. H. Charles, ed. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 2:225.
“Then didst thou preserve “two living creatures”; the name of the one thou didst call Behemoth and the name of the other thou didst call Leviathan. And thou didst separate the one from the other; for the seventh part, where the water was gathered together, was unable to hold them (both). And thou didst give Behemoth one of the parts which had been dried up on the third day to dwell in, (that namely) where are a thousand hills: but unto Leviathan thou gavest the seventh part, namely the moist: and thou hast reserved them to be devoured by whom thou wilt and when.” ( 4 Ezra 49-52) [46]
[46] 4 Ezra, trans. G. H. Box, ed. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 2:579.
“And Behemoth shall be revealed from his place and Leviathan shall ascend from the sea, those two great monsters which I created on the fifth day of creation, and shall have kept until that time; and then they shall be for food for all that are left.” ( 2 Baruch 29.4) [47]
[47] 2 Baruch, trans. R. H. Charles, ed. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 2:497.
Rabbinic tradition reflects a similar approach in identifying these two creatures.
“And the Lord said, Let the lakes of the waters swarm forth the reptile, the living animal, and the fowl which flieth, whose nest is upon the earth; and let the way of the bird be upon the air of the expanse of the heavens. And the Lord created the great tanins, the lev-ya-than and his yoke-fellow which are prepared for the day of consolation, and every living animal which creepeth, and which the clear waters had swarmed forth after their kind; the kinds which are clean, and the kinds which are not clean; and every fowl which flieth with wings after their kinds, the clean and the unclean.” ( The Targum of Jonathan Gen 1:21) [48]
[48] J. W. Etheridge, The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee (1862).
Church tradition has followed a literal interpretation for these two creatures, attempting to identify them with some of God’s larger animals, such as the elephant and mastodon, the hippopotamus, the crocodile, the whale, and the dinosaur.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Job’s Weakness Contrasted with the Strength Even of the Hippopotamus
v. 15. Behold now behemoth, v. 16. Lo, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly, v. 17. He moveth his tail like a cedar, v. 18. His bones are as strong pieces of brass v. 19. He is the chief of the ways of God, v. 20. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, v. 21. He lieth under the shady trees, v. 22. The shady trees, v. 23. Behold, he drinketh up a river and hasteth not, v. 24. He taketh it with his eyes; his nose pierceth through snares.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Job 40:15. Behemoth The Hebrew word behemoth expresses that animal which eminently partakes of the bestial or brutish nature. Bochart seems to have proved to a demonstration, that the behemoth is the hippopotamus, the sea-horse, or, more properly, the river-horse. The Sieur Thevenot, saw one of these animals at Cairo. “This animal,” says he, “was of a tan colour; its hind parts resemble those of an ox or buffaloe, excepting that its feet were shorter and thicker; in size it is equal to a camel; its snout, or nose, is like that of an ox, and its body twice as big; its head resembles that of a horse, and is of the same size; its eyes are small; its crest is very thick; its ears are small; its nostrils very wide and open; its feet are very thick, pretty large, and have each four toes, like those of a crocodile; its tail is small, without any hair, like that of an elephant; its lower jaw has four large teeth, about half a foot long, two of them crooked, and as thick as the horns of an ox, one of which is on each side of the throat; besides these, it has two others, which are straight, of the same thickness as those which are crooked, and project forwards.” The river-horse shelters himself among the reeds; and the behemoth is said to be in the coverts of the reeds and fens, and to be compassed about with the willows of the brook. The river-horse feeds upon the herbage of the Nile; and the behemoth is said to eat grass as an ox. No creature is known to have stronger ribs than the river-horse; and the bones of the behemoth are as strong pieces of brass, like bars of iron. See Lowth’s Notes on his 6th Prelection, 8vo. Edit.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(15) Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. (16) Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. (17) He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. (18) His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. (19) He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. (20) Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. (21) He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. (22) The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. (23) Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. (24) He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
The LORD here represents, under the history of the largest of land animals, which some suppose to have been the elephant, the sovereignty of his power: and, having described his greatness, strength, and fortitude, points out to Job, that the same power which made, can in a moment unmake him. And the LORD takes occasion from hence to remark his distinguishing grace to man, which was formed from the dust of the earth, in the same day; and no doubt, in the description here given, the LORD designed Job to form suitable conclusions, that if all and everything resulted from his infinite power and wisdom, surely, there was enough in such views of divine greatness, and divine goodness to induce humble and dutiful submission, even independent of other causes, to the divine will.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Ver. 15. Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee ] i.e. The elephant, called behemoth, that is, beasts, in the plural, for his size; as if he were made up of many beasts, Vocatur Bellua per antonomasiam, et Graec. So David, aggravating his own brutishness, saith, “So foolish was I and ignorant: I was as a beast” (Heb. Behemoth, beasts in the plural) “before thee,” Psa 73:22 , that is, as a great beast; his sin swelled in his eyes, as a toad; he befools and bebeasts himself, as reason required; for nothing is more irrational than irreligion.
Which I made with thee
He eateth grass like an ox
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Job 40:15-24
Job 40:15-24
BEHOLD NOW; BEHEMOTH!
“Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee;
He eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins,
And his force is in the muscles of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar:
The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are as tubes of brass;
His limbs are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God:
He only that made him giveth him his sword.
Surely the mountains bring him forth food,
Where all the beasts of the field do play.
He lieth under the lotus-trees,
In the covert of the reed, and the fen.
The lotus-trees cover him with their shade;
The willows of the brook compass him about.
Behold, if a river overflow, he trembleth not;
He is confident, though a Jordan swell even unto his mouth.
Shall any take him when he is on the watch, or pierce through his nose with a snare?”
“Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee” (Job 40:15). Both “behemoth” in this passage and “leviathan” in Job 41 are creatures which God has made; and therefore they may not be identified as mythological creatures. We confess that it is difficult to understand just what God intended by this extensive presentation of these two strange animals. All kinds of explanations have been attempted, identifying behemoth as a mythological creature, a prehistoric beast now extinct, an elephant, a rhinoceros, or a hippopotamus. The general consensus is that the hippopotamus is the animal spoken of. Still, there are things mentioned here that do not fit that animal at all, for example, the statement that, “He moves his tail like a cedar” (Job 40:17), the tail of a hippopotamus being, in fact, a somewhat insignificant and minor member of his body.
There are many strange and inexplicable things about any of God’s creatures, just as there are of the huge beast mentioned here. That his great strength should come from eating grass appears early in the description, reminding us of the childhood mystery of how a red horse, a yellow cow, a black sheep, and a white goose could all be feeding on a field of green grass, and making diverse colored coverings for themselves out of the same diet, and how the cow produced milk, the sheep wool, and the goose feathers!
“He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together” (Job 40:17 in KJV). We have selected the King James rendition here, because it supports a radical interpretation of this passage by Van Selms:
“The hippopotamus is a creature of mine, just like you, but really not made for your sake! It is only an animal that feeds on grass; but, unlike cattle, it will never be tamed by you. Its being of no benefit to you does not mean that it has no value for me. Just look at it, and marvel! Just notice, for example, (and this is the part that interests you human beings the most), how the hippo contrives to raise that extraordinary weight of his when the male is about to impregnate the female. What concentrated power there is in his underbelly … and that sexual organ itself, thick and hard like a cedar-tree! No human being could ever construct anything like that. It is my masterpiece. And just look at those enormous teeth, like swords”!
We have included this interpretation because it is supported by two things: (1) It is supported by the KJV rendition of the word `stones’ (Job 40:17), which is translated “testicles” in the Douay Version of the Bible and (2) the fact the comparison to a cedar-tree does not fit a hippopotamus’ tail at all.
“For he is the chief of the ways of God” (Job 40:19). “This suggests that God’s masterpiece was the hippopotamus. However, the passage bears the translation that, `He is the beginning of the ways of God,’ indicating that, as a grass-eater, the behemoth belonged to the creative category of cattle, which were mentioned ahead of the beasts in Gen 1:24.” Andersen also agreed with this
“Shall any take him when he is on the watch” (Job 40:24)?
This is perhaps the key as to why God gave this description of behemoth. If Job, like all other humans, cannot either tame or contend against one of his fellow-creatures, how could he possibly presume to pass judgment upon the justice of the Eternal? Whatever God’s purpose might have been in these accounts of behemoth and leviathan (Job 41). they had the desired effect upon Job.
E.M. Zerr:
Job 40:15-24. Since this entire group of verses pertains to the same creature, I have made one paragraph of them. In the margin of some Bibles the behemoth is defined as an elephant, but every characteristic ascribed to him is true of the hippopotamus. Moffatt so defines it from the original and Strong defines it, “a water-ox, i. e. the hippopotamus or Nilehorse.” The argument is that this creature defies the strength of man. He lives and thrives in regions where man does not and gives every indication of having been created by some power other than man.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
behemoth
Or, the elephant, as some think.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
behemoth: [Strong’s H930], Perhaps an extinct dinosaur, maybe a Diplodocus or Brachiosaurus, the exact meaning is unknown. Some translate as elephant or hippopotamus but from the description in Job 40:15-24, this is patently absurd.
which: Gen 1:24-26
he: Job 40:20, Job 39:8, Psa 104:14
Reciprocal: Gen 1:22 – General Gen 1:30 – General Psa 8:8 – The fowl Psa 50:10 – every
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Job 40:15. Behold now behemoth The word properly means beasts, and is so understood by the LXX., whose interpretation of the verse is, , , Behold the beasts with thee, they eat grass, like oxen. According to Ab. Ezra, and the Targum, it is the name of any great beast. But R. Levi says, bestiam esse specialem, that it is an animal peculiarly called by that name. This, indeed, is probable from what follows, namely, His strength is in his loins: he moveth his tail, &c., and though the word, according to the termination oth, be strictly a plural in the feminine gender, yet we sometimes find it irregularly used for a singular. Thus, Psa 73:22. So foolish was I, &c., I was, behemoth, a beast before thee. But the great question is, What beast it meant? The ancient and most generally received opinion has been, that it is the elephant. Thus Buxtorf, Singulariter, capitur pro elephante proper ingentem magnitudinem, It is taken in the singular number for the elephant, because of its vast greatness. And I confess, says Henry, I see no reason to depart from the opinion, that it is the elephant that is here described, which is a very strong, stately creature, of a very large stature, above any other, and of wonderful sagacity, and of such great reputation in the animal kingdom, that, among so many four-footed beasts as we have had the natural history of, chap. 38. and 39., we can scarce suppose this should be omitted. They who understand this of the elephant, take the following animal, called leviathan, for the whale; observing, that as these are two of the goodliest and vastest creatures which God hath made, the one of the land, the other of the sea, and withal such as the description here given, for the most part, manifestly agrees to, it is most probable they are here intended. But some later and very learned men take the leviathan to be the crocodile, and the behemoth to be a creature called the hippopotamus, or river-horse, which may seem to be fitly joined with the crocodile, both being very well known to Job and his friends, as being frequent in the adjacent places, both amphibious, living and preying both in the water and upon the land, and both being creatures of great bulk and strength. Dr. Dodd, who is of opinion that Bochart has proved to a demonstration that the behemoth is the hippopotamus, has presented us with two descriptions, one from the ancients, and the other from a modern, who saw the creature; which descriptions, he thinks, may serve instead of a commentary upon the passage. The ancient is Achilles Tatius, who thus describes the animal: Some persons chanced to meet with, and take a river monster, which was very remarkable. The Egyptians call it the river-horse, or horse of the river Nile; and it resembles a horse, indeed, in its feet and body, excepting that its hoofs are cloven. Its tail is short, and without hair, as well as the rest of the body. Its head is round, but not small; its jaws, or cheeks, resemble those of a horse; its nostrils are very large, and breathe out a vapour like smoke; its mouth is wide, and extends to the temples; its teeth, especially those called the canine, are curved like those of a horse, both in their form and situation, but thrice as large. It is a very voracious animal, and would consume the produce of a whole field. It is very strongly made all over, and its skin so hard that it is impenetrable to any weapon. The modern traveller is the Sieur Thevenot, who saw one of these animals at Cairo. This animal, says he, was of a tan colour; its hind parts resembled those of an ox, or buffalo, excepting that its feet were shorter and thicker; in size it is equal to a camel; its snout, or nose, is like that of an ox, and its body twice as big; its head resembles that of a horse, and is of the same size; its eyes are small; its crest is very thick; its ears are small; its nostrils very wide and open; its feet are very thick, pretty large, and have each four toes, like those of a crocodile; its tail is small, without any hair, like that of an elephant; its lower jaw has four large teeth, about half a foot long, two of them crooked, and as thick as the horns of an ox, one of which is on each side of the throat; beside these, it has two others, which are straight, of the same thickness as those which are crooked, and project forward. The river-horse, says the doctor, shelters himself among the reeds; and the behemoth is said to be in the coverts of the reeds and fens, and to be compassed about with the willows of the brook. The river-horse feeds upon the herbage of the Nile; and the behemoth is said to eat grass as an ox. No creature is known to have stronger ribs than the river-horse; and the bones of the behemoth are as strong pieces of brass, like bars of iron. See Lowths Notes on his sixth Prelection, 8vo. edit.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 40:15 to Job 41:34. Behemoth and Leviathan. Most scholars regard this passage as a later addition to the poem. The point of Job 40:8-14 is Gods reply to Jobs criticism of His righteousness; the description of these beasts, however, illustrates at great length mans impotence, which is only a secondary thought in the previous Divine speech. They therefore divert attention from the main issue. Moreover, there is a great difference between these descriptions and those of Job 38:39 to Job 39:30. Here the descriptions are heavy and laboured, gaining their effect, such as it is, by an accumulation of details, a catalogue of their points and minute descriptions of the various parts of their bodies. But the poet who gave us the pictures of the wild ass, the horse, and the eagle was a swift impressionist, springing imagination with a touch, not stifling it with the fullness of detail proper to a natural historian (Peake).
A further question is whether, in accordance with the generally accepted view, Behemoth is the hippopotamus, and Leviathan the crocodile. Some modern scholars think they are mythological figures. Gunkel, followed by Zimmern, identifies Leviathan with the chaos-monster Tiamat, and Behemoth with her consort Kingu. In some cases this identification suits, while certain details do not fit the usual explanation. Still the mythological interpretation has not been generally accepted; the inappropriateness of details on the usual theory is explained by the imperfect knowledge or the poetical exaggeration of the author.
Job 40:15-24. BehemothThe name means a huge beast; it is an intensive plural of behmh, beast. In Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar is an exaggeration: the tail is only a short, naked stump.
The statement that Behemoth is the chief of the ways of God (Job 40:19) suggests that he is Gods masterpiece. We may, however, render the beginning of the ways of God. The idea that Behemoth was the first animal might be derived from Gen 1:24, where cattle (behmh) are placed first.
Job 40:19 b is corrupt. Giesebrecht reads who is made to be ruler over his fellows. In Job 40:23 translate a Jordan, the appellative denoting any torrent: the hippopotamus is not found in the Jordan. In Job 40:24 when he is on the watch is literally in his eyes. The parallelism suggests that the meaning is attack him in his eyes.
Duhm would place Job 41:9-12 here as the conclusion of the description of Behemoth.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
40:15 Behold now {e} behemoth, which I made {f} with thee; he eateth {g} grass as an ox.
(e) This beast is thought to be the elephant, or some other, which is unknown.
(f) Whom I made as well as you.
(g) This commends the providence of God toward man: for if he were given to devour as a lion, nothing would be able to resist him, or content him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
God’s questions 40:15-41:34
Yahweh’s purpose in directing Job’s attention to such inexplicable animals on land (Behemoth) and in the water (Leviathan) seems to have been almost the same as His purpose in His first speech. He intended to humble Job by reminding him of his very limited power and wisdom, compared with God’s, so Job would submit to His Lordship.
Scholars disagree on the question of whether the Behemoth and Leviathan that the writer described here were real or mythological creatures. Some of the descriptions, if taken literally, could hardly refer to real animals that are alive today (e.g., Job 41:18-22). Nevertheless, this is poetic literature and these descriptions may be figurative, specifically: hyperbole (overstatement to emphasize one or more characteristics, similar to a caricature).
"Our poet can hardly write a line without including a simile, a habit which many critics censure as artistic over-kill." [Note: Andersen, p. 291.]
Those who prefer the mythological monster interpretation do so mainly because Leviathan almost certainly describes a mythical creature in Job 3:8, Psa 74:14, and Isa 27:1, and perhaps elsewhere in Scripture. Also the description of Leviathan in Job 41:18-22 seems to picture an unreal sea monster. Furthermore, there are similar descriptions of this sea monster in ancient Near Eastern mythology. Nevertheless, it seems to many of the commentators, and to me, that Leviathan here, but not everywhere in Scripture, describes a real animal for the following reasons. The details of the description point to a real animal. Moreover, both Behemoth and Leviathan occur elsewhere in Scripture apart from mythical connotations (e.g., Joe 1:20 where the Hebrew word translated "Behemoth" in Job 40:15 reads "beasts"; cf. Psa 104:26). Additionally, Scripture states that God created Behemoth (Job 40:15) and Leviathan (Psa 104:26) as well as Job.
Yahweh reminded Job that Behemoth was a creature as he was (Job 40:15). Job was not the Creator; he was on a lower level. The Hebrew word translated "Behemoth" is the plural of the word usually rendered "beast." Consequently, some believe Job 40:15 a is an introductory statement for what God says about both animals that follows. However, in Job 40:15-24, God had one particular animal in view. Since He gave a name to the second animal (Job 41:1), He probably intended that we understand "Behemoth" as a name for the first animal.
Bible students have nominated several animals as Behemoth because of its description in Job 40:15-24. Some of these are the elephant, [Note: R. Laird Harris, "The Book of Job and Its Doctrine of God," Grace Journal 13 (Fall 1976):20-21.] the extinct rhinoceros that had no horn, [Note: Bernard Northrup, "Light on the Ice Age," Bible-Science Newsletter, June 1976, p. 4.] the extinct brontosaurus dinosaur, [Note: "Dinosaurs and the Bible," Five Minutes with the Bible and Science (supplement to Bible-Science Newsletter, May 1976), p. 2.] the water buffalo, [Note: B. Coureyer, "Qui est Behemoth?" Revue Biblique 82 (1975):418-43.] and most popularly the hippopotamus. Many commentators hold this view. Perhaps both Behemoth and Leviathan refer to dinosaurs species, or perhaps other ancient animals that have now become extinct.
Job 40:19 a probably means Behemoth is the first in size and strength, perhaps among animals of its kind, or among animals in Job’s area.
"The adult hippopotamus weighs up to eight thousand pounds." [Note: Zuck, Job, p. 179.]
Job 40:19 b may mean that only its Maker should dare go near it for hand-to-hand combat; no human being would defeat it. [Note: Reichert, p. 212.] The definite article "the" before "Jordan" in Job 40:23 b is absent in the Hebrew text. This may mean that God had any swift river in mind, any Jordan. [Note: Rowley, p. 257.] "When he is on watch" (Job 40:24 a) is literally "by the eyes," the only parts of a submerged hippopotamus, along with its nose (Job 40:24 b), that are visible above the water.
Various writers have identified Leviathan in Job 41:1 as a mythical sea monster, [Note: Pope, pp. 329-31.] a marine dinosaur, [Note: "Dinosaurs and . . ."] a whale, a dolphin, even a "tunny" (tuna?) fish, and most commonly a crocodile.
This section (ch. 41) contains the longest and last description of an animal in the book. As such it is climactic. God first drew Job’s attention to the fact that Leviathan was very hard for people to capture and use (Job 41:1-11). Since Job could not challenge Leviathan successfully, he should hardly expect to challenge its Creator successfully (Job 41:10). Job should not think that because he had a little wisdom and strength he could get the best of God in a contest. He could not even overcome Leviathan, one of God’s creatures. "Given to" (Job 41:11 a) is literally "anticipated."
"The argument to the superior strength of God is made, not to discourage men from trying to have dealings with God, but to enhance God’s capability of managing the affairs of the universe so that men will trust Him." [Note: Andersen, p. 290.]
Job 41:12-24 emphasize Leviathan’s anatomy. "His sneezes flash forth light" (Job 41:18 a) may mean that in the proper light the spray from his nostrils looked like jets of light. [Note: Reichert, p. 216.] Its eyes may be like the "eyelids of the morning" (Job 41:18 b) in that they were the first part of the animal to become visible as it rose to the water’s surface. [Note: Ibid.] Job 41:19-21 may describe its release of "pent-up breath together with water in a hot stream from its mouth [that] looks like a stream of fire in the sunshine." [Note: Rowley, p. 262.]
The last section of this description (Job 41:26-34) emphasizes man’s inability to capture Leviathan. Job 41:31 b may allude to the foam that formed on the top of a pot when someone was preparing ointment. [Note: Zuck, Job, p. 183.] The deep appeared grey-headed (Job 41:32 b), perhaps when the animal’s wake made whitecaps on the dark water. The section concludes by stressing this beast’s fearless confidence. If people cannot shake the confidence of one of God’s creatures, how foolish it was for Job to think he could intimidate God.
To some degree Job, his three friends, and Elihu had all based their arguments on the rationality of God’s acts. God reminded them of Behemoth and Leviathan partially to teach them all that His actions transcend our ability to explain everything rationally.
"Animals independent of man (Job 38:39 to Job 39:30) and animals dangerous and repulsive to man (Job 40:15 to Job 41:34) were all a grand zoological exhibition to help Job sense that because he had nothing to do with making, sustaining, or even subduing them, it was unthinkable that he could question their Creator." [Note: Ibid.]
Another writer advocated a different view with which I do not agree.
". . . the beasts themselves celebrate instead Job’s triumph." [Note: John G. Gammie, "Behemoth and Leviathan: On the Didactic and Theological Significance of Job 40:15-41:26," in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, p. 231.]
One might conclude after reading these speeches of Yahweh that God is not very compassionate. He may seem more concerned about establishing His own glory than about Job’s suffering. However, we need to remember that God could have said nothing. Furthermore, by directing Job’s thinking as He did, God did what was best for Job, the truly loving thing. He did not just give him answers to specific questions but a vision of Himself that would transform Job’s life forever after. God’s words to Job may sound harsh, but He was simply responding to Job in the same vein as Job had been addressing Him (cf. 2Sa 22:26-27; Psa 18:25-26). He did not do this to mock him but to make a forceful impression on him. The forcefulness of His words harmonizes with the forcefulness of His revelation and the forcefulness of His person. [Note: See Robert Gordis, "The Lord out of the Whirlwind." Judaism 13:1 (Winter 1964):48-63.] God wants us to understand Him as best we can within our finite human limitations. That is evidently why He spoke to Job, and that is why He preserved this record of His revelation in Scripture. [Note: For seven different explanations of the meaning of Yahweh’s speeches to Job, see Donald E. Gowan, "God’s Answer to Job: How Is It an Answer?" Horizons in Biblical Theology 8:2 (December 1986):85-102.]
"That no summary challenge was needed at the end of the Lord’s second speech is indicative that Job’s second response (Job 42:1-6) was a willing one in contrast to his initial reluctant reply (Job 40:3-5)." [Note: Parsons, p. 141.]