Animal
Animal
(designated by various Hebrews terms, rendered creature, living thing, cattle, etc.), an organized living body, endowed with sensation. SEE BEAST. The Hebrews distinguished animals into pure and impure, clean and unclean; or those which might be eaten and offered, and those whose use was prohibited. The sacrifices which they offered were:
(a.) of the beeve kind, a cow, bull, or calf. The ox could not be offered, because it was mutilated. Where it is said in our version oxen were sacrificed, we are to understand bulls (Exo 20:24).
(b.) Of the goat kind, a he-goat, a she-goat, or kid (Lev 22:21).
(c.) Of the sheep kind, a ewe, ram, or lamb. When it is said sheep are offered, rams are chiefly meant, especially in burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sins. SEE SACRIFICE.
Besides these three sorts of animals used in sacrifices, many others might be eaten, wild or tame. All that have not cloven hoofs, and do not chew the cud, were esteemed impure, and could neither be offered nor eaten. SEE CLEAN. Commentators on the Scriptures are much divided with relation to the legal purity or impurity of animals. It would appear that this distinction obtained before the Flood, since God commanded Noah (Gen 7:2)
to carry seven couples of clean animals into the ark and two of unclean. SEE FOOD. The following is a complete list of all the Biblical animals, both clean and unclean (many of them named in Deu 14:1-29; Lev 11:1-47), exclusive of BIRDS SEE BIRDS , FISHES SEE FISHES , INSECTS SEE INSECTS , and REPTILES SEE REPTILES (all which see in their order), arranged under their true English names (with the Hebrew or Greek term in italics), so far as these have been discovered.
(See Kinniburgh, Scriptural Animals, Edinb. 1852; Anonymous, Scriptural Quadrupeds, Lond. 1858). SEE ZOOLOGY.
WORSHIP OF ANIMALS. The reasons of the choice of animals consecrated to receive worship among the Egyptians, the great practisers of this superstition, are now involved in much obscurity; some are probably connected with the beasts themselves, some with astronomical allegories, and some, perhaps, with now lost historical facts. (For a list of the sacred animals of different parts of Egypt, see Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians, abridgm. 1:245 sq.) SEE IDOLATRY. The ox, the sheep, and the ichneumon were held in almost general veneration; the cat and the asp had their distinguishing homage; and the Egyptian custom of selecting some in preference to others, as the objects of veneration by different cities, extended to other countries, and was adopted by the Lemnians and Thessalians. The bloody wars occasioned by the variety of homage paid to animals, such as that caused by the inhabitants of Cynopolis eating the oxyrinchus, and the Oxyrinchians the dog, prove how fiercely the superstition was cherished. Herodotus says that the hippopotamus was sacred only in the Papremitic Nome, and he adds the eel and water-snake to the list of hallowed fishes, and the fox-goose to that of hallowed birds. Sacred serpents were kept at Thebes, and in the mysteries and many other pagan rites they were pre-eminently conspicuous. The cats, Herodotus observes, when dead, are carried to sacred buildings, and, after being embalmed, are buried in the city Bubastis. Dogs and ichneumons are buried wherever they happen to die. The shrew-mouse and the hawk are removed to Butos; the ibis to Hermonopolis; bears and wolves are buried in whatever place they die, but not, like the dogs, in consecrated chests (Herod. 2, 65-67). The solar deities of the Egyptians are usually represented with the head of a hawk. In the procession at Dendera, several of these hawk-headed divinities appear with an ornament upon the head, composed of the circle, and a serpent with an inflated neck, or, as it is usually termed, a basilisk. The worship of the serpent appears to have been at an early period almost universal, which may be accounted for by considering that reptile as the earliest type of the solar influence, which in later times gave place to other emblems, possibly on account of the venomous properties of the creature, which rendered it an unsuitable representation of that from which it was supposed all good proceeded. SEE WORSHIP. Lands were set apart for the support of the sacred animals; men and women were employed in feeding and maintaining them. If a person killed any of these creatures designedly, he was punished with death; if involuntarily, his punishment, in some cases, was referred to the priest; but if the animal killed were either a cat, a hawk, or an ibis, and that whether by design or not, the culprit was to die, without mercy, and the enraged multitude seldom waited even for the formalities of a trial. A Roman, in the time of one of the Ptolemies, who killed a cat accidentally, was torn in pieces by the populace on the spot, in spite of all the efforts of the king’s guard to save him. When any of these animals died, great lamentation was made, and vast sums expended on their funeral. We are told that in the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the bull Apis dying, his keeper expended more than fifty talents of silver, or 13,000, on his interment (see Wilkinson’s Anc. Eg. 1, 226 sq.). The Israelites often debased themselves by an imitation of this daemonolatry, for which they were severely punished by God, because it was one grand design of the Mosaic law to keep their theology free from these gross appendages. SEE APIS; SEE CAT; SEE CROCODILE; SEE IBIS; SEE ICHNEUMON; SEE SERPENT; SEE SATYR, etc.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Animal
an organized living creature endowed with sensation. The Levitical law divided animals into clean and unclean, although the distinction See ms to have existed before the Flood (Gen. 7:2). The clean could be offered in sacrifice and eaten. All animals that had not cloven hoofs and did not chew the cud were unclean. The list of clean and unclean quadrupeds is set forth in the Levitical law (Deut. 14:3-20; Lev. 11).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Animal
ani-mal: See under the various names and also the general article on ZOOLOGY.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Animal
zoon (G2226) Animal, Living Creature
therion (G2342) Beast
In numerous passages, zoon and therion may be used interchangeably, though this does not prove that there is no distinction between them. In a few other passages, one word is appropriate and the other is not, or one word is more suitable than the other. These passages reveal the difference between zoon and therion.
Zoon and therion are not coordinate terms. Therion is completely subordinate to zoon. As the lesser term, therion is “included in” zoon, the greater term. All creatures that live on earth, including man himself, are zoa. According to the Definitions of Plato, God himself is “an immortal creature [zoon],” the only one to whom life by absolute right belongs. Zoon is not used in the New Testament to designate man, still less to designate God. God is not merely living but absolute life, the one fountain of life, “self-existent” (autozoon), and the “source of life” (pege zoes). Therefore zoe (G2222), the better and more reverent term, is used to describe God (Joh 1:4; 1Jn 1:2). In its ordinary use, zoon is synonymous with the English animal and often is used with alogon (G249) or similar terms (2Pe 2:12; Jud 1:10).
Therion seems to be a diminutive of ther. Like chrysion (G5553), biblion (G975), phortion (G5413), angeion (G30), and many other words, therion has left behind whatever diminutive force it once may have possessed. Therion already had lost this force by the time the Odyssey was composed, as the phrase mega (G3173) therion (large beast) attests. Therion does not exclusively refer to mischievous and ravening beasts (cf. Exo 19:13; Heb 12:20), though such animals are generally intended (Mar 1:13; Act 28:4-5). Theria in Act 11:6 is distinguished from “four-footed animals.” Schmidt correctly noted: “In therion there is a very strong connotation of ferocity and cruelty.” Although there are numerous passages in the Septuagint where beasts of sacrifice are mentioned, they are never called theria. Evidently, therion primarily has a brutal or bestial connotation that does not draw attention to the similarity between man and inferior animals that makes the latter an appropriate representative and substitute that may be offered for the former. This also explains the frequent application of therion and theriodes to fierce and brutal men.
All of this makes us regret that the Authorized Version uses “beast” to translate therion and zoon in the Book of Revelation, thereby obliterating the distinction between them. Therion and zoon both play important roles in the Book of Revelation, and both belong to its higher symbolism. They are used in spheres as far removed as heaven is from hell. The zoa (living creatures) that stand before the throne, who contain the fullness of creaturely life as it gives praise and glory to God, constitute a part of the heavenly symbolism. The theria are the first and second beasts that rise upone from the bottomless pit (Rev 11:7) and the other from the sea (Rev 13:1). One makes war upon the two witnesses, and the other opens his mouth in blasphemies. Together they form part of the hellish symbolism. To confuse these distinct symbols under the common designation beast would be an oversight, even if that name were suitable for both. It is a more serious error when the word used brings out, as therion does, the predominance of the lower animal life and the translation of that word is then applied to the glorious creatures in the very court of heaven. This error is common to most English translations. It is surprising that the Rheims Version did not escape this, since the Vulgate translates zoa by animalia (animals) and therion only by bestia (beast). If zoa always were translated “living creatures,” it would unmistakably relate these symbols to Eze 1:5; Eze 1:13-14 (and often), where the Authorized Version translates hayah (H2416) as “living creature” and the Septuagint uses zoon.
Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament
Animal
is an organized and living body, endowed with sensation. Minerals are said to grow or increase, plants to grow and live, and animals alone to have sensation. The Hebrews distinguished animals into pure and impure, clean and unclean; or those which might be eaten and offered, and those whose use was prohibited. The sacrifices which they offered, were,
1. Of the beeve kind; a cow, bull, or calf. The ox could not be offered, because it was mutilated; and when it is said oxen were sacrificed, we are to understand bulls, Lev 22:18-19. Calmet thinks, that the mutilation of animals was neither permitted, nor used, among the Israelites.
2. Of the goat kind; a he-goat, a she-goat, or kid, Lev 22:24.
3. Of the sheep kind; a ewe, ram, or lamb. When it is said sheep are offered, rams are chiefly meant, especially in burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin; for as to peace-offerings, or sacrifices of pure devotion, a female might be sometimes offered, provided it was pure, and without blemish, Lev 3:1.
Besides these three sorts of animals, used in sacrifices, many others might be eaten, wild or tame; as the stag, the roe-buck, and in general all that have cloven feet, or that chew the cud, Lev 9:2-3, &c. All that have not cloven hoofs, and do not chew the cud, were esteemed impure, and could neither be offered nor eaten. The fat of all sorts of animals sacrificed was forbidden to be eaten. The blood of all kinds of animals generally, and in all cases, was prohibited on pain of death, Lev 3:17; Lev 7:23-27. Neither did the Israelites eat animals which had been taken and touched by a devouring or impure beast, as a dog, a wolf, a boar, &c, Exo 22:3; nor of any animal that died of itself. Whoever touched its carcass was impure until the evening; and till that time, and before he had washed his clothes, he did not return to the company of other Jews, Lev 11:39-40; Lev 17:15; Lev 22:8. Fish that had neither fins nor scales were unclean, Lev 11:20. Birds which walk on the ground with four feet, as bats, and flies that have many feet, were impure. The law, however, excepts locusts, which have their hind feet higher than those before, and rather leap than walk. Those were clean, and might be eaten, Lev 11:21-22, as they still are in Palestine. The distinction between clean and unclean animals has been variously accounted for. Some have thought it symbolical, intended to teach the avoidance of those evil qualities for which the unclean animals were remarkable; others, that, in order that the Hebrews might be preserved from idolatry, they were commanded to kill and eat many animals which were sacred among the Egyptians, and were taught to look with abhorrence upon others which they reverenced. Others have found a reason in the unwholesomeness of the flesh of the creatures pronounced by the law to be unclean, so that they resolve the whole into a sanative regulation. But it is not to be forgotten that this division of animals into clean and unclean existed both before the law of Moses, and even prior to the flood. The foundation of it was therefore clearly sacrificial; for before the deluge it could not have reference to health, since animal food was not allowed to men prior to the deluge; and as no other ground for the distinction appears, except that of sacrifice, it must therefore have had reference to the selection of victims to be solemnly offered to God, as a part of worship, and as the means of drawing near to him by expiatory rites for the forgiveness of sins. Some, it is true, have regarded this distinction of clean and unclean beasts as used by Moses by way of prolepsis, or anticipation,a notion which, if it could not be refuted by the context, would be perfectly arbitrary. Not only are the beasts, which Noah was to receive, spoken of as clean and unclean; but it will be noticed, that, in the command to take them into the ark, a difference is made in the number to be preservedthe clean being to be received by sevens, and the unclean by two of a kind. This shows that this distinction among beasts had been established in the time of Noah; and thus the assumption of a prolepsis is refuted. The critical attempts which have been made to show that animals were allowed to man for food, previous to the flood, have wholly failed.
A second argument is furnished by the prohibition of blood for food, after animals had been granted to man for his sustenance along with the herb of the field. This prohibition is repeated by Moses to the Israelites, with this explanation:I have given it upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls. From this it has indeed been argued, that the doctrine of the atoning power of blood was new, and was then, for the first time, announced by Moses, or the same reason for the prohibition would have been given to Noah. To this we may reply,
1. That unless the same be supposed as the ground of the prohibition of blood to Noah, as that given by Moses to the Jews, no reason at all can be conceived for this restraint being put upon the appetite of mankind from Noah to Moses.
2. That it is a mistake to suppose, that the declaration of Moses to the Jews, that God had given them the blood for an atonement, is an additional reason for the interdict, not to be found in the original prohibition to Noah. The whole passage in Leviticus 17, is, And thou shalt say to them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and I will cut him off from among his people: FOR THE LIFE of the flesh is in the blood; and I
have given it upon the altar, to make atonement for your souls: for it is the BLOOD (or LIFE) that maketh atonement for the soul. The great reason, then, of the prohibition of blood is, that it is the LIFE; and what follows respecting atonement is exegetical of this reason; the life is in the blood, and the blood or life is given as an atonement. Now, by turning to the original prohibition of Genesis, we find that precisely the same reason is given: But the flesh with the blood, which is the life thereof, shall ye not eat. The reason, then, being the same, the question is, whether the exegesis added by Moses must not necessarily be understood in the general reason given for the restraint to Noah. Blood is prohibited for this cause, that it is the life; and Moses adds, that it is the blood, or life, which makes atonement. Let any one attempt to discover any cause for the prohibition of blood to Noah, in the mere circumstance that it is the life, and he will find it impossible. It is no reason at all, moral or instituted, except that as it was life substituted for life, the life of the animal in sacrifice for the life of man, and that it had a sacred appropriation. The manner, too, in which Moses introduces the subject is indicative that, although he was renewing a prohibition, he was not publishing a new doctrine; he does not teach his people that God had then given, or appointed, blood to make atonement; but he prohibits them from eating it, because he had made this appointment, without reference to time, and as a subject with which they were familiar. Because the blood was the life, it was sprinkled upon, and poured out at, the altar: and we have in the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, a sufficient proof, that, before the giving of the law, not only was blood not eaten, but was appropriated to a sacred sacrificial purpose. Nor was this confined to the Jews; it was customary with the Romans and Greeks, who, in like manner, poured out and sprinkled the blood of victims at their altars, a rite derived, probably, from the Egyptians, as they derived it, not from Moses, but from the sons of Noah. The notion, indeed, that the blood of the victims was peculiarly sacred to the gods, is impressed upon all ancient Pagan mythology.
If, therefore, the distinction of animals into clean and unclean existed before the flood, and was founded upon the practice of animal sacrifice, we have not only a proof of the antiquity of that practice, but that it was of divine institution and appointment, since almighty God gave laws for its right and acceptable performance. Still farther, if animal sacrifice was of divine appointment, it must be concluded to be typical only, and designed to teach the great doctrine of moral atonement, and to direct faith to the only true sacrifice which could take away the sins of men;the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,the victim without spot, who suffered the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. See SACRIFICES.