Job 40:15

“Behold, now behemoth, etc.] 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, (<197322>Psalm 73:22); The word is here rendered by the Septuagint yhria, “beasts”; which is the word used by the Greeks f1444 for elephants as “belluae”, a word of the same signification, is by the Latins f1445: and so the Sabines called an elephant “barrus”, and the Indians “barro” f1446, r[b, a “beast”; and it may be observed, that ivory is called “shenhabbim”, (<111022>1 Kings 10:22); that is,…”

“God shows that if Job cannot bring under control the lower animals (of which he selects the two most striking, behemoth on land, leviathan in the water), much less is he capable of governing the world. behemoth--The description in part agrees with the hippopotamus, in part with the elephant, but exactly in all details with neither. It is rather a poetical personification of the great Pachydermata, or Herbivora (so "he eateth grass"), the idea of the hippopotamus being predominant. In Job 40:17, "the tail like a cedar," hardly applies to the latter (so also Job 40:20, Job 40:23, "Jordan," a river which elephants alone could reach, but see on Job 40:23). On the other hand, Job 40:21-22 are…”

“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…”

“Behemoth - Very learned men take the leviathan to be the crocodile, and the behemoth to be the river - horse, which may fitly be joined with the crocodile, both being well known to Joband his friends, as being frequent in the adjacent parts, both amphibious, living and preying both in the water and upon the land. And both creatures of great bulk and strength. Made - As I made thee. Grass - The river - horse 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 form of his head and feet, and in the bigness of his body, whence the Italians call him, the sea - ox. Job 40:16”

“40:15-24 Following a list of natural animals (39:1-30), God described Behemoth (40:15-24) and Leviathan (41:1-34) as creatures that man cannot tame. Job couldn’t tame the wild donkey or ox (39:5-12), let alone Behemoth and Leviathan (40:15-24), but God created them and could control them, and Job had to acknowledge it (41:2). • Here Behemoth seems to be a natural creature: (1) It is an animal that God made, just as he made Job (40:15); (2) it is not a dreadful predator but eats grass like an ox (40:15); and (3) it is in a poem describing God’s creation of the natural order, rather than in a mythological story of the world’s formation. Most commentators identify Behemoth with the…”

“behemoth: בהמות \[Strong's H930\], 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 Job 40:17”

“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. בּהמות (after the manner of the intensive plur. הוללות, חכמות, 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 κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν, 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…”