Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 40:19
He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
19, 20. These verses are connected,
19. He is the chief of the ways of God;
He that made him provideth him with his sword;
20. For the mountains, &c.
By “chief,” lit. beginning, is meant the first in magnitude and power, in whom the full, fresh creative force has embodied itself. The meaning of the second clause is less certain. The reference seems to be to the teeth or the eye-tusks of the hippopotamus, which are said to be two feet long, and with which he shears the vegetation as with a sword or sickle.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He is the chief of the ways of God – In size and strength. The word rendered chief is used in a similar sense in Num 24:20, Amalek was the first of the nations; that is, one of the most powerful and mighty of the nations.
He that made him can make his sword approach unto him – According to this translation, the sense is, that God had power over him, notwithstanding his great strength and size, and could take his life when he pleased. Yet this, though it would be a correct sentiment, does not seem to be that which the connection demands. That would seem to require some allusion to the strength of the animal; and accordingly, the translation suggested by Bochart, and adopted substantially by Rosenmuller, Umbreit, Noyes, Schultens, Prof. Lee, and others, is to be preferred – He that made him furnished him with a sword. The allusion then would be to his strong, sharp teeth, hearing a resemblance to a sword, and designed either for defense or for the purpose of cutting the long grass on which it fed when on the land. The propriety of this interpretation may be seen vindicated at length in Bochart, Hieroz. P. ii. Lib. v. c. xv. pp. 766, 762. The harpe, i. e. the sickle or scythe, was ascribed to the hippopotamus by some of the Greek writers. Thus, Nicander, Theriacon, verse 566:
,
,
.
Ee hippon, ton Neilos huper Sain aithaloessan
Boskei, arouresin de kaken epiballetai.
Harpen
On this passage the Scholiast remarks, The harpe, means a sickle, and the teeth of the hippopotamus are so called – teaching that this animal consumes ( trogei) the harvest. See Bochart also for other examples. A slight inspection of the cut will show with what propriety it is said of the Creator of the hippopotamus, that he had armed him with a sickle, or sword.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. He is the chief of the ways of God] The largest, strongest, and swiftest quadruped that God has formed.
He that made him] No power of man or beast can overcome him. God alone can overcome him, and God alone could make his sword (of extinction) approach to him.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Of the ways of God, i.e. of Gods works, to wit, of that sort, or among living and brute creatures. This is eminently and unquestionably true of the elephant, in regard of his vast bulk and strength, joined with great activity, and especially of his admirable sagacity and aptness to learn, and of his singular usefulness to mankind, his lord and master, and Gods vicegerent in the world, and many other commendable qualities. And the hippopotamus also is in some sort, as others note, the chief, or one of the chief, of Gods works, in regard of its great bulk, and strength, and sagacity, and the manner of his living, both in the water and upon the land. But it must be granted that the elephant doth exceed the hippopotamus in many things.
Though he be so strong and terrible, yet God can easily subdue and destroy him, either immediately, or by arming other creatures, as the rhinoceros, or dragon, or tiger, against him. Or, he that made him hath applied or given to him his sword, or arms, to wit, his trunk, which may not unfitly be called his sword, because thereby he doth both defend himself and offend his enemies. And this trunk of his being a thing very observable and admirable in him, and therefore not likely to be neglected in his description, if it were not intended by his tail, Job 40:17, may seem to be designed in these words.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. Chief of the works ofGod; so “ways” (Job 26:14;Pro 8:22).
can make his sword toapproachrather, “has furnished him with his sword”(harpe), namely, the sickle-like teeth with which hecuts down grain. English Version, however, is literally right.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He [is] the chief of the ways of God,…. Or the beginning of them, that is, of the works of God in creation; which must be restrained to animals, otherwise there were works wrought before any of them were created. There were none made before the fifth day of the creation, and on that day was the river horse made; in which respect it has the preference to the elephant, not made till the sixth day. But if this phrase is expressive of the superior excellency of behemoth over other works of God, as it seems to be, it must be limited to the kind of which it is; otherwise man is the chief of all God’s ways or works, made either on the fifth or sixth day: and so as the elephant may be observed to be the chief of the beasts of the earth, or of land animals, for its largeness and strength, its sagacity, docility, gentleness, and the like; so the river horse may be said to be the chief of its kind, of the aquatic animals, or of the amphibious ones, for the bulk of its body, which is not unlike that of the elephant, as says Diodorus Siculus q; and it has been by some called the Egyptian elephant r; and also from its great sagacity, of which instances are given by some writers s. However, it is one of the chief works of God, or a famous, excellent, and remarkable one, which may be the sense of the expression; see Nu 24:20. It might be remarked in favour of the elephant, that it seems to have its name from , the first and chief; as the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet is called “aleph”; unless it should have its name from this root, on account of its docility;
he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him]; not the sword of God, as if this creature could not be killed by any but by him that made it; for whether the elephant or river horse be understood, they are both to be taken and slain: but the sword of behemoth is that which he himself is furnished with; which some understand of the trunk of the elephant, with which he defends himself and annoys others; but that has no likeness of a sword. Bochart t renders the word by “harpe”, which signifies a crooked instrument, sickle or scythe; and interprets it of the teeth of the river horse, which are sharp and long, and bent like a scythe. That which Thevenot u saw had four great teeth in the lower jaw, half a foot long, two whereof were crooked; and one on each side of the jaw; the other two were straight, and of the same length as the crooked, but standing out in the length: see the figure of it in Scheuchzer w; by which it also appears to have six teeth. Another traveller says x, of the teeth of the sea horse, that they are round like a bow, and about sixteen inches long, and in the biggest part more than six inches about: but another relation y agrees more nearly with Thevenot and Scheuchzer; that four of its teeth are longer than the rest, two in the upper jaw, one on each side, and two more in the under; these last are four or five inches long, the other two shorter; with which it mows down the corn and grass in great quantities: so that Diodorus Siculus z observes, that if this animal was very fruitful, and brought forth many young and frequently, the fields in Egypt would be utterly destroyed. This interpretation agrees with what follows.
q Ut supra. (Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 136. & l. 3. p. 173. 174. 175.) r Achilles Tatius, l. 4. s Ammian. Marcellin. Plin. Solin. ut supra. Vid. Plin. l. 28. c. 8. t Ut supra, (Apud Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 5. c. 14.) col. 760. u Travels, part 1. c. 72. w Physic. Sacr. tab. 532. x Dampier’s Voyages, vol. 2. part 2. p. 105. y Capt. Rogers apud Dampier, ib. p. 106. z Ut supra. (Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 136. & l. 3. p. 173. 174. 175.)
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
19 He is the firstling of the ways of God;
He, his Maker, reached to him his sword.
20 For the mountains bring forth food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play beside him.
21 Under the lote-trees he lieth down,
In covert of reeds and marsh.
22 Lote-trees cover him as shade,
The willows of the brook encompass him.
23 Behold, if the stream is strong, he doth not quake;
He remaineth cheerful, if a Jordan breaketh forth upon his mouth.
24 Just catch him while he is looking,
With snares let one pierce his nose!
God’s ways is the name given to God’s operations as the Creator of the world in Job 40:19 (comp. Job 26:14, where His acts as the Ruler of the world are included); and the firstling of these ways is called the Behmth, not as one of the first in point of time, but one of the hugest creatures, un chef-d’oeuvre de Dieu (Bochart); not as Pro 8:22; Num 24:20, of the priority of time, but as Amo 6:1, Amo 6:6, of rank. The art. in is, without the pronominal suff. being meant as an accusative (Ew. 290, d), equal to a demonstrative pronoun (comp. Ges. 109, init): this its Creator (but so that “this” does not refer back so much as forwards). It is not meant that He reached His sword to behmoth, but (on which account is intentionally wanting) that He brought forth, i.e., created, its (behmoth’s) peculiar sword, viz., the gigantic incisors ranged opposite one another, with which it grazes upon the meadow as with a sickle: (Nicander, Theriac. 566), is exactly the sickle-shaped Egyptian sword ( harpu = ). Vegetable food (to which its teeth are adapted) is appointed to the behmoth: “for the mountains produce food for him;” it is the herbage of the hills (which is scanty in the lower and more abundant in the upper valley of the Nile) that is intended, after which this uncouth animal climbs (vid., Schlottm.). is neither a contraction of (Ges.), nor a corruption of it (Ew.), but Hebraeo-Arab. = baul , produce, from bala , to beget, comp. aballa , to bear fruit (prop. seed, bulal ), root , to soak, wet, mix.
(Note: Whether , Job 6:5; Job 24:6, signifies mixed provender ( farrago ), or perhaps ripe fruit, i.e., grain, so that jabo l, Jdg 19:21, in the signification “he gave dry provender consisting of barley-grain,” would be the opposite of the jahushsh ( ) of the present day, “he gives green provender consisting of green grass or green barley, hashsh ,” as Wetzst. supposes, vid., on Isa 30:24.)
Job 40:20 describes how harmless, and if unmolested, inoffensive, the animal is; there, viz., while it is grazing.
In Job 40:21 Saadia correctly translates: Arab. tht ‘l – dal ; and Job 40:22, Abulwalid: Arab. ygth ‘l – dl mdllla lh , tegit eum lotus obumbrans eum , by interpreting Arab. ‘l – dl , more correctly Arab. ‘l – dal , with es – sidr el – berr , i.e., Rhamnus silvestris ( Rhamnus Lotus , Linn.), in connection with which Schultens’ observation is to be noticed: Cave intelligas lotum Aegyptiam s. plantam Niloticam quam Arabes Arab. nufr . The fact that the wild animals of the steppe seek the shade of the lote-tree, Schultens has supported by passages from the poets. The lotus is found not only in Syria, but also in Egypt, and the whole of Africa.
(Note: The Arab. dal or Dum – tree, which likes hot and damp valleys, and hence is found much on the northern, and in great numbers on the eastern, shores of the Sea of Galilee, is called in the present day sidra , collect. sidr ; and its fruit, a small yellow apple, duma , collect. dum , perhaps “the not ending, perennial,” because the fruit of the previous year only falls from the tree when that of the present year is ripe. Around Bagdad, as they told me, the Dum -tree bears twice a year. In Egypt its fruit is called nebq ( , not nibq as in Freytag), and the tree is there far stronger and taller than in Syria, where it is seldom more than about four and twenty feet high. Only in the Wdi ‘s-sidr on the mountains of Judaea have I seen several unusually large trunks. The Kms places the signification “the sweet Dum -tree” first of all to Arab. dal , and then “the wild D.” In hotter regions there may also be a superior kind with fine fruit, in Syria it is only wild – Neshwn (ii. 192) says: “ dala , collect. dal , is the wild Dum -tree,” – yet I have always found its fruit sweet and pleasant to the taste. – Wetzst.)
The plur. is formed from the primary form , as from , Olsh. 148, b; the single tree was perhaps called (= Arab. dalt ), as (Ew. 189, h). Ammianus Marc. xxii. 15 coincides with Job 40:21: Inter arundines celsas et squalentes nimia densitate haec bellua cubilia ponit . , Job 40:22 (resolved from , as , Job 20:7, from ),
(Note: Forms like , , are unknown to the language, because it was more natural for ease of pronunciation to make the primary form into than into , (vid., p. 449), , might more readily be referred to , (in which the first a is a helping vowel, and the second a root vowel); but although the form and the segolate forms completely pass into one another in inflection, still there does not exist a safe example in favour of the change of vowels of into ; wherefore we have also derived , Job 38:28, from , not from , although, moreover, frequently enough alternates with (e.g., ), and a transition into of the weakened from (e.g., ) also occurs. But there are no forms like = from in reality, although they would be possible according to the laws of vowels. In Ges. Handwrterb. (1863) stands under (according to the form , which, however, forms ) and under ( a rare noun-form, which does not occur at all from verbs double Ayin).)
is in apposition with the subj.: Lote-trees cover it as its shade (shading it). The double play of words in Job 40:22 is not reproduced in the English translation.
, Job 40:23, pointing to something possible, obtains almost the signification of a conditional particle, as Job 12:14; Job 23:8; Isa 54:15. The Arabic version appropriately translates Arab. ‘n tga ‘l – nhr , for Arab. tga denotes exactly like , excessive, insolent behaviour, and is then, as also Arab. dlm , ta , and other verbs given by Schultens, transferred from the sphere of ethics to the overflow of a river beyond its banks, to the rush of raging waters, to the rising and bursting forth of swollen streams. It does not, however, terrify the behmoth, which can live as well in the water as on the land; , properly, it does not spring up before it, is not disturbed by it. Instead of the Jordan, Job 40:23, especially in connection with , the ‘Gaihn (the Oxus) or the ‘Gaihn (the Pyramus) might have been mentioned, which have their names from the growing force with which they burst forth from their sources ( , , comp. ‘gacha , to wash away). But in order to express the notion of a powerful and at times deep-swelling stream, the poet prefers the of his fatherland, which moreover, does not lie so very far from the scene, according to the conception at least, since all the wadis in its neighbourhood flow directly or indirectly (as Wdi el-Meddn, the boundary river between the district of Suwt and the Nukra plain) into the Jordan. For (perhaps from )
(Note: Certainly one would have expected like , while like , , appears formed from ; nevertheless (with changeable Ssere) can be understood as a change of vowel from (comp. for ).)
does not here signify a stream (rising in the mountain) in general; the name is not deprived of its geographical definiteness, but is a particularizing expression of the notion given above.
The description closes in Job 40:24 with the ironical challenge: in its sight ( as Pro 1:17) let one (for once) catch it; let one lay a snare which, when it goes into it, shall spring together and pierce it in the nose; i.e., neither the open force nor the stratagem, which one employs with effect with other animals, is sufficient to overpower this monster. is generally rendered as equal to , Isa 37:29; Eze 19:4, or at least to the cords drawn through them, but contrary to the uniform usage of the language. The description of the hippopotamus
(Note: Vid., Grehm, Aus dem Leben des Nilpferds, Gartenlaube 1859, Nr. 48, etc.)
is not followed by that of the crocodile, which also elsewhere form a pair, e.g., in Achilles Tatius, iv. 2, 19. Behemoth and leviathan, says Herder, are the pillars of Hercules at the end of the book, the non plus ultra of another world distant from the scene. What the same writer says of the poet, that he does not “mean to furnish any contributions to Pennant’s Zoologie or to Linnaeus’ Animal Kingdom,” the expositor also must assent to.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(19) He is the chief of the ways of God.This is surely more applicable to the elephant than the hippopotamus, considering the great intelligence and usefulness of the elephant. The last clause is very obscure. Some render, He only that made him can bring his sword near unto him; or, He that made him hath furnished him with his sword. Others, He that would dress him (as meat) let him come near him with his sword ! indicating the inequality of the contest. Perhaps a combination of the first and last is bestLet his Maker (but no one else venture to) approach him with His sword.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
. A description of the strange life and habits of this powerful beast, which, though undaunted by the river flood, is easily captured and destroyed by the guile of man, Job 40:19-24.
19. The chief of the ways of God He is a chief, , a firstling, perhaps masterpiece of God’s creative energy. The allusion seems to be to the immense bulk, possibly to his type as being that of the earliest of the extinct pachydermata. Jewish and patristic commentators found on this expression, “firstling of God’s ways,” a symbolic representation of Satan.
Can make his sword to approach Rather, Furnished [ him ] his sword. Thus, essentially, Bochartus, Umbreit, Schlottmann, Renan, Zockler, etc. Dillmann’s rendering, “which was created so as to attach thereon a sword,” gives a sense weak and clumsy, which by no means satisfies his proposed pointing. The utterly irreconcilable renderings of the Septuagint, “made to be mocked at ( ) by the angels;” and of Ewald, “Yet his Maker blunts his sword,” serve only to show the contrariety of views that have been taken of this vexed passage. Delitzsch well says, “It is not meant that he reached his sword to behemoth, but (on which account is intentionally wanting) that he brought forth, i.e., created, its (behemoth’s) peculiar sword, viz.: the gigantic incisors ranged opposite one another.” The happy paraphrase of the elegant poet Sandys, early (1638) embodied the true sense:
Of God’s great works the chief, lo! he who made
This behemoth, hath armed him with a blade.
He feeds on lofty hills; lives not by prey,
About this gentle prince the subjects play.
The lower jaw of this animal is provided with enormous ripping, chisel-like canines. (Tristam.) “With these apparently combined teeth the hippopotamus can cut the grass as neatly as if it were mown with the scythe, and is able to sever a tolerably stout and thick stem.” WOOD, Mammalia, p. 762. He also states that in anger it has been known to bite a man completely in two. ( Bib. Animals, page 322.) Ruppel, the German naturalist, captured one of these animals measuring from the snout to the end of the tail fifteen feet; his tusks, from the roots to the point, along the external curve, being twenty-eight inches in length. It is an interesting coincidence that the sword should appear as a characteristic of this animal, in its hieroglyphic name inscribed on Egyptian monuments in an age prior to that of Moses. The third figure from the left is a good representation of the ancient Egyptian scythe or reaping-hook, as depicted on the monuments, and at the same time of the tusk of the hippopotamus. See Excursus VIII, p. 275. Nicander, a Greek poet who lived in the second century B.C., treating of the hippopotamus, speaks of his “destructive sword, or scythe.” . Theriaca, 566. Divinely equipped with a sword, he bears the insignia of a warrior; brought to the test, he proves to be a peaceful grazer of the fields; his sword he wields, not that he may destroy life, but that he may reap the tender and succulent growths of the marsh. Labelled a warrior for nature’s battlefield, he appears simply a successful forager. Other interpreters, (T. Lewis and Canon Cook,) accept the authorized version, and understand that the monster is impenetrable by the sword of man. The latter cites a very ancient Egyptian inscription: “The tepi, (i.e., hippopotamus,) the lord of terrors in the water, which man can not approach unto.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 40:19. He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him He who made him, hath furnished him with his scythe. Heath. The Hebrew word here rendered sword, or scythe, denotes the instrument by which this animal gathers his food.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Job 40:19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
Ver. 19. He is the chief of the ways of God ] i.e. The masterpiece among all the beasts (and perhaps first made), as man is among all earthly creatures, being divini ingenii cura, as one calls him. Of all earthly irrational creatures the elephant is the largest and strongest and of most understanding.
He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the chief: Job 26:13, Psa 104:24
he that: Psa 7:12, Isa 27:1
Reciprocal: Job 41:33 – Upon
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
40:19 {h} He [is] the chief of the ways of God: {i} he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
(h) He is one of the chief works of God among the beasts.
(i) Though man dare not come near him, yet God can kill him.