Albert Barnes Commentary Job 41

Can you draw out—As a fish is drawn out of the water. The usual method by which fish were taken was with a hook, and the meaning here is that it was not possible to take the leviathan in this manner. The whole description here is of an animal that lived in the water.

Leviathan—Much has been written respecting this animal, and the opinions entertained have been very various. Schultens enumerates the following classes of opinions regarding the animal intended here:

1. The opinion that the word leviathan is to be retained without attempting to explain it—implying that there was uncertainty as to the meaning. Under this head, he refers to the Chaldee and the Vulgate, to Aquila and Symmachus, where the word is retained; and to the Septuagint, where the word Δράκοντα (Drakonta)—“dragon”—is used, and also the Syriac and Arabic, where the same word is used.

2. The fable of the Jews, who mention a serpent so large that it encompassed the whole earth. A belief in the existence of such a marine serpent or monster still prevails among the Nestorians.

3. The opinion that the whale is intended.

4. The opinion that a large fish called “Mular,” or “Musar,” which is found in the Mediterranean, is denoted. This is the opinion of Grotius.

5. The opinion that the crocodile of the Nile is denoted.

6. The opinion of Hasaeus, that not the whale is intended, but the “Orca,” a sea-monster armed with teeth, and the enemy of the whale.

7. Others have understood the whole description as allegorical, representing monsters of iniquity; among these, some have regarded it as descriptive of the devil! (See Schultens).

To these may be added the description of Milton:

—That sea-beast
Leviathan, which God of all His works
Created hugest that swims the ocean-stream,
Him, perhaps, slumbering on the Norway foam,
The pilot of some small night-foundered skiff,
Deeming some island, often, as seamen tell,
With fixed anchor in his scaly rind
Moors by his side under the lee, while night
Invests the sea, and wished-for morn delays.
Paradise Lost, Book 1.

For a full investigation of the subject, Bochart may be consulted (Hieroz. P. ii. Lib. v. c. xvi–xviii). The conclusion to which he comes is that the crocodile of the Nile is denoted, and in this opinion, critics have generally acquiesced since his time. The opinions entitled to most attention are those which regard the animal here described as either the whale or the crocodile. The objections to the supposition that the whale is intended are as follows:

1. That the whale tribes do not inhabit the Mediterranean, much less the rivers that empty into it—with which alone it is supposed Job could have been acquainted.

2. That the animal here described differs from the whale in many essential particulars. “This family of marine monsters has neither a proper snout nor nostrils, nor proper teeth. Instead of a snout, they have a mere spiracle, or blowing-hole, with a double opening on the top of the head; and for teeth, a hard expanse of horny laminae, which we call whalebone, in the upper jaw. Moreover, the eyes of the common whale, instead of answering the description given here, are most disproportionately small and do not exceed in size those of the ox. Nor can this monster be regarded as having fierce habits or unconquerable courage, for instead of attacking the larger sea-animals for plunder, it feeds chiefly on crabs and medusas and is often itself attacked by the ork or grampus, though less than half its size” (Dr. Good). These considerations seem decisive regarding the supposition that the animal referred to here is the whale. In fact, there is almost nothing in the description that corresponds with the whale, except its size.

The whole account, on the contrary, agrees well with the crocodile. Before we proceed with the exposition, several considerations may be suggested which correspond with the supposition that this is the animal intended. They are as follows:

1. The crocodile is a natural inhabitant of the Nile and other Asiatic and African rivers, and it is reasonable to suppose that an animal is referred to that was well known to one who lived in Job’s country. Although the Almighty is the speaker and could describe an animal wholly unknown to Job, it is not reasonable to suppose that such an unknown animal would be selected. The appeal was to what Job knew of the works of God.

2. The general description agrees with this animal. The leviathan is represented as wild, fierce, and ungovernable; as of vast extent and terrible in its aspect; as having a mouth of vast size and armed with a formidable array of teeth; as covered with scales set near together like a coat of mail; as distinguished by the fierceness of its eyes and by the frightful aspect of its mouth; as endowed with great strength and incapable of being taken by any of the ordinary methods of securing wild beasts. This general description agrees well with the crocodile.

These animals are found in the rivers of Africa and also in the southern rivers of America, and are usually called the alligator. In the Amazon, the Niger, and the Nile, they occur in great numbers and are usually from eighteen to twenty-seven feet long, sometimes lying as close to each other as a raft of timber (Goldsmith).

The crocodile grows to a great length, sometimes being found thirty feet long from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail, though its most usual length is about eighteen or twenty feet. “The armor with which the upper part of the body is covered may be numbered among the most elaborate pieces of Nature’s mechanism. In the full-grown animal, it is so strong and thick as to easily repel a musket-ball. The whole animal appears as if covered with the most regular and curious carved work. The mouth is of vast width, the gape having a somewhat flexuous outline, and both jaws are furnished with very numerous, sharp-pointed teeth. The number of teeth in each jaw is thirty or more, and they are so disposed as to alternate with each other when the mouth is closed. The legs are short but strong and muscular.

In the glowing regions of Africa, where it arrives at its full strength and power, it is justly regarded as the most formidable inhabitant of the rivers” (Shaw’s Zoology, vol. iii, p. 184). The crocodile seldom leaves the water, except when pressed with hunger or for the purpose of depositing its eggs. Its usual method is to float along the surface and seize whatever animals come within its reach; but when this method fails, it then goes nearer the bank. There it waits among the sedges for any animal that may come down to drink, seizes upon it, and drags it into the water. The tiger is thus often seized by the crocodile, dragged into the river, and drowned.

3. A third reason for supposing that the crocodile is intended here arises from the former conclusion concerning the “behemoth” (Job 40:15 and following). The description of the leviathan immediately follows that, and the presumption is that they were animals usually found inhabiting the same district or country. If, therefore, the behemoth is the hippopotamus, there is a presumption that the leviathan is the crocodile—an inhabitant of the same river, equally amphibious, and even more terrible. “And this consideration,” says the Editor of the Pictorial Bible, “is strengthened when we consider that the two animals were so associated by the ancients. Some of the paintings at Herculaneum represent Egyptian landscapes in which we see the crocodile lying among the reeds and the hippopotamus browsing upon the plants on an island. So also, in the famous Mosaic pavement at Praeneste, representing the plants and animals of Egypt and Ethiopia, the river-horse and the crocodile are associated in the same group in the River Nile.” The crocodile was formerly found in abundance in Lower Egypt and the Delta, but it now limits the extent of its visits northward to the districts around Manfaloot, and the hippopotamus is no longer seen in Lower Ethiopia. Neither the hippopotamus nor the crocodile appears to have been eaten by the ancient Egyptians. Pliny mentions the medicinal properties of both of them (Pliny 28.8); and Plutarch affirms that the people of Apollinopolis used to eat the crocodile (De Iside et Osiride, section 50); but this does not appear to have been a usual custom.

Herodotus says that “some of the Egyptians consider the crocodile sacred, while others make war upon it; and those who live around Thebes and Lake Moeris (in the Arsinoite nome) hold it in great veneration” (Herodotus 2.69). In some cases, the crocodile was treated with the greatest respect and kept at considerable expense. It was fed and attended with the most scrupulous care: geese, fish, and various meats were dressed purposely for it. They ornamented its head with earrings and its feet with bracelets and necklaces of gold and artificial stones. It was rendered tame by kind treatment, and after death, the body was embalmed in a sumptuous manner.

This was particularly the case in the Theban, Ombite, and Arsinoite nomes. At a place now called Maabdeh, opposite the modern town of Manfaloot, are extensive grottoes cut far into the limestone mountain, where numerous crocodile mummies have been found, perfectly preserved and evidently embalmed with great care.

In other parts of Egypt, however, the animal was held in the greatest abhorrence, and so they lost no opportunity of destroying it (See Wilkinson’s Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. iii, pp. 75 and following). The engraving opposite represents Egyptian crocodiles (Crocodilus vulgaris) disporting themselves on the banks of the Nile or basking in the sun—one of their favorite practices. The figures were drawn from living animals. The word rendered here “leviathan” (לויתן, livyathan) occurs only in this place and in Job 3:8; Psalms 74:14; Psalms 104:26; and Isaiah 27:1. In all these places it is rendered leviathan, except in Job 3:8, where it is rendered in the text, “their mourning,” and in the margin, “leviathan” (see the notes at that verse, and compare the notes at Isaiah 27:1). The connection of the word with the root is not certainly known.

Gesenius regards it as derived from לוה (lavah)—to join oneself to anyone, and then to wreathe, to fold, to curve; and in Arabic “to weave, to twist,” as a wreath or garland. He suggests that the word is applied to an animal that is “wreathed,” or that gathers itself “in folds”—a “twisted animal.”

In Job 3:8, the word is used to denote some huge, untamable, and fierce monster, and will agree there with the supposition that the crocodile is intended (see the notes at that place). In Psalm 74:14, the allusion is to Pharaoh, compared with the leviathan, and the passage would agree best with the supposition that the allusion was to the crocodile. The crocodile was an inhabitant of the Nile, and it was natural to allude to that in describing a fierce tyrant of Egypt. In Psalm 104:26, the allusion is to some huge animal of the deep, particularly of the Mediterranean, and the language would apply to any sea-monster. In Isaiah 27:1, the allusion is to the king and tyrant that ruled in Babylon, as compared with a dragon or fierce animal (compare the notes on that passage, and Revelation 12:0). Any of these passages will accord well with the supposition that the crocodile is denoted by the word, or that some fierce, strong, and violent animal that could involve itself, or that had the appearance of an extended serpent, is referred to. The resemblance between the animal described here and the crocodile will be further indicated by the notes at the particular descriptions in the chapter.

With a hook—Implying that the animal referred to here was aquatic and that it could not be taken in the way fish were usually caught. It is known now that the crocodile is occasionally taken with a hook, but this is not the usual method, and there is no evidence that it was practiced in Job’s time. Herodotus says that it was one of the methods used in his time. “Among the various methods,” he says, “that are used to take the crocodile, I shall relate only one which deserves most attention: they fix a hook (ἄγκιστρον, agkistron) on a piece of swine’s flesh and allow it to float into the middle of the stream. On the banks, they have a live hog, which they beat until it cries out. The crocodile, hearing the noise, makes toward it and in the way encounters and devours the bait. They thus draw it on shore, and the first thing they do is to fill its eyes with clay; it is thus easily manageable, which it otherwise would not be” (Herodotus, Book 2, Chapter 70).

“The manner of taking it in Siam is by throwing three or four strong nets across a river at proper distances from each other, so that if the animal breaks through the first, it may be caught by one of the others. When it is first taken, it employs its tail—which is the grand instrument of its strength—with great force; but after many unsuccessful struggles, the animal’s strength is at length exhausted. Then the natives approach their prisoner in boats and pierce it with their weapons in the most tender parts until it is weakened with the loss of blood” (Goldsmith). From ancient sculptures in Egypt, it appears that the common method of attacking the crocodile was with a spear, transfixing it as it passed beneath the boat in shallow water (See Wilkinson’s Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. iii, pp. 75 and following). The most common method of taking the crocodile now is by shooting it.

(Pococke). It is quite clear, therefore, that, agreeably to what is said in the passage before us, the common method of taking it was not by a hook, and it is probable that in Job’s time this method was not practiced.

Or its tongue with a cord which you let down—Or rather, “Can you sink its tongue with a cord?”—that is, can you tame it by a thong or bit thrust into its mouth? (Gesenius). The idea is that of “pressing down” the tongue with a cord, so that the animal would be tractable.

Can you put a hook into his nose? — Or rather, a “rope,” or “cord.” The word used here (אגמון 'agmôn) means “a cauldron,” or “kettle” (Job 41:20), also a reed, or bulrush, growing in marshy places, and thus a rope made of reeds, a rush-cord. The idea is that he could not be led about by a cord, as tame animals may be. Mr. Vansittart, however, supposes that the words here are expressive of ornaments. He suggests that the allusion is to the fact mentioned by Herodotus: that the crocodile was led about by the Egyptians as a divinity, and in this state, it was adorned with rings and various stately trappings.

There can be no doubt that such a fact existed, but this does not accord well with the scope of the passage here. The object is to impress the mind of Job with a sense of the strength and untamableness of the animal, not to describe the honors which were paid to it.

Or bore his jaw through with a thorn? — Or with a ring. The word here properly means a thorn, or thorn-bush (Job 31:40; Proverbs 26:9), and then also a ring that was put through the nose of an animal to secure it. The instrument was probably made sharp like a thorn or spike, and then bent to become a ring . Mr. Bruce, speaking of the manner of fishing in the Nile, says that when a fisherman has caught a fish, he draws it to the shore and puts a strong iron ring into its jaw. To this ring is fastened a rope by which the fish is attached to the shore; the fisherman then throws the fish again into the water. “Rosenmuller.”

Will he make many supplications unto thee? - In the manner of a captive begging for his life. That is, will he quietly submit to you? Prof. Lee supposes that there is an allusion here to the well-known cries of the dolphin when taken; but it is not necessary to suppose such an allusion. The idea is that the animal referred to here would not tamely submit to his captor.

Will he speak soft words unto thee? - Pleading for his life in tones of tender and plaintive supplication.

Will he make a covenant with thee?—That is, will he submit himself to you and enter into a compact to serve you? Such a compact was made by those who agreed to serve another; and the idea here is that the animal here referred to could not be reduced to such service—that is, could not be tamed.

Wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?—Can you so subdue him that he will be a perpetual slave? The meaning of all this is that he was an untamable animal and could not be reduced, as many others could, to domestic use.

Will you play with him as with a bird?— A bird that is tamed. The art of taming birds was doubtless early practiced, and they were kept for amusement. But the leviathan could not thus be tamed.

Or will you bind him for your maidens?— For their amusement. For such purposes doubtless, birds were caught and caged. There is great force in this question, on the supposition that the crocodile is intended. Nothing could be more incongruous than the idea of securing so rough and unsightly a monster for the amusement of tender and delicate females.