Albert Barnes Commentary Job 40:15

"Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee; He eateth grass as an ox." — Job 40:15 (ASV)

Behold now behemoth — Margin, “or, the elephant, as some think.” At 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 held regarding the animal referred to here, though the “main” inquiry has related to the question whether the “elephant” or the “hippopotamus” is meant. Since the time of Bochart, who conducted an extended examination of the subject (“Hieroz.” P. ii. L. ii. c. xv.), the common opinion has been that the latter is referred to here. As a “specimen” of the method of interpreting the Bible that has prevailed, and as a proof of the slow progress that has been made in settling the meaning of a difficult passage, we may refer to some of the opinions that have been held about this animal. They are chiefly taken from the collection of opinions made by Schultens, on this passage.

Among them are the following:

1. That wild animals in general are meant. 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, was 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 accepted, that the “river horse” 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 meant; 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 a genus now altogether extinct, like the mammoth, and other animals that have been discovered in fossil remains. This opinion is also held 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 align well with the hippopotamus. It must be admitted that there is some plausibility in this conjecture of Dr. Good, though perhaps I shall be able to show that there is no necessity for adopting this supposition.

The word “behemoth” (בהמות b'hemoth), used here in the plural number, occurs often in the singular number, to mean a non-speaking beast, usually applied to the larger types of quadrupeds. It occurs very often in the Scriptures, and is usually translated “beast,” or collectively “cattle.” It usually refers to land animals, in opposition to birds or reptiles. See the Lexicons, and Taylor’s “Hebrew Concordance.” It is rendered by Dr. Nordheimer (Heb. Con.) in this place, “hippopotamus.” The plural form is often used (Job 12:7; Jeremiah 12:4; Habakkuk 2:17; Psalms 50:10), but it is not used as a proper name in any other instance. Gesenius supposes that under the form of the word used here, there lies hidden some Egyptian name for the hippopotamus, “so modified as to put on the appearance of a Semitic word.”

Thus, the Ethiopian “pehemout” means “water-ox,” by which epithet (“bomarino”) the Italians also designate the hippopotamus.” The translations do not provide much help in determining the meaning of the word. The Septuagint renders it, θηρία (thēria)—“wild beasts;” Jerome retains the word, “Behemoth;” the Chaldee, בעיריא, “beast;” the Syriac retains the Hebrew word; Coverdale renders it, “cruel beast;” Prof. Lee, “the beasts;” Umbreit, ”Nilpferd,” “Nile-horse;” and Noyes, “river-horse.” Therefore, the only way to determine which animal is meant here, is to compare carefully the characteristics referred to here with the animals now known, and to find which one possesses these characteristics. We may here safely “presume” on the entire accuracy of the description, since we have found the previous descriptions of animals to correspond entirely with the habits of those existing today.

The illustration drawn from the present passage, regarding 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 38–41), the appeal is made, first, to the phenomena of nature (Job 38); then to the beasts of the earth, among whom the “ostrich” is included (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 kind. The argument regarding 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—undoubtedly 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; Diodorus Siculus, i. 35; and Pliny, “Natural History,” xxviii. 8.

2. The character of the animal may be determined from the “particular things” specified. Those are the following:

   • It is an amphibious animal, or an animal whose usual habitat is the river, though he is occasionally on land. This is evident, because he is mentioned as lying under the cover of the reeds and fens; as living 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, 20). This account would not fit well with the elephant, whose residence is not among marshes and fens, but on solid ground.

   • 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, 20). This part of the description would agree with the elephant as well as with the hippopotamus.

   • 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, Book viii, chapter 20; Aelian, Book xvii, chapter 44; (compare the notes at Job 40:16).

   • 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).

   • He is remarkable for the strength of his bones (Job 40:18).

   • He is remarkable for the quantity of water which he drinks at a time (Job 40:23); and

   • He has the power of forcing his way, chiefly by the strength of his nose, through snares used in attempts to capture him (Job 40:24).

These characteristics agree better with the hippopotamus than with any other known animal; and critics today, with few exceptions, agree that this is the animal that is meant. 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 would certainly have been mentioned if the description had described him; and

2. That the elephant was wholly unknown in Arabia and Egypt.

The hippopotamus, Ἱπποπόταμος (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 tapir, the rhinoceros, and the swine. “Edinburgh Encyclopaedia,” article “Mazology.” The hippopotamus is found principally on the banks of the Nile, though it is found also in the other large rivers of Africa, such as the Niger, and the rivers that 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 currently 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 have small hooves, 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 disproportionately 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 Lake Tzana that were twenty feet in length. The whole animal is covered with short hair, which is denser 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 retreat 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 daytime 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 humans they put out the whole head. In shallow rivers they make deep holes in the bottom to conceal their bulk. They are eagerly eaten by the inhabitants of Africa. The following account of the capture of a hippopotamus greatly helps to clarify 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. Küppell, the German naturalist, who visited Upper Egypt, and the countries even further up the Nile, and is the most recent traveler in those regions (“Reisen in Nubia, Kordofan, etc.,” Frankfurt 1829, pages 52 and following).

“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 tracking 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 ward off 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 commonly heads 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 crunched in the same way, several cattle that were fastened to a water-wheel.

As 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 large 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 as soon as he perceives the boat, he rushes upon it; seizes it, if possible, with his teeth; and sometimes succeeds in shattering it, or overturning 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 boat, 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 full-grown hippopotamus is too large to be drawn out of the water without many 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 to eat; 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 boat, 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 musket balls which were fired into the monster’s 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 boat. 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 increased the horrors and dangers of the contest. This gigantic hippopotamus dragged our large boat wherever it pleased in every direction of the stream; and it was in a fortunate moment for us that he yielded, just as he had drawn the boat 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, because they lack a cannon. These animals are a real plague to the land, due to 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 abandon 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.” Wilkinson’s “Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,” vol. iii, pp. 70, 71.

Which I made with you — That is, either “I have made him as well as you, have formed him to be a fellow-creature with you,” or, “I have made him near you”—namely, 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 beast, 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 prominence 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 eats grass like 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 assumed 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 entirely 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 sufficient abundance, and the animal is then forced on land, where it commits significant damage among plantations of sugar cane and grain.

The fact here referred to, that the food of the hippopotamus is grass or herbs, is also mentioned by Diodorus: Κατανέμεται τόν τε σῖτον καὶ τόν χόρτον (Katanemetai ton te siton kai ton chorton). The same thing is mentioned also by Sparrmann, “Travels through South Africa,” p. 563, German Translation.