Regarding the Behemoth

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Job says of the Behemoth:

His is the first of God’s ways; [only] his Maker can draw His sword [against him]. 40:19
The first of God’s Ways, but not the Way lived by Christ. The Way of the Behemoth suits the Gothic orders of God’s Providence but denies His eternal order of Providence that rules Heaven and which was present on Earth both at the time of Christ’s coming and at the height of the Renaissance. Nevertheless, only God can create such archaic beasts of the spirit and only God will tame them-

With His eyes He will take him; with snares He will puncture his nostrils. 40:24
Thus is the fate of the Behemoth.


[size=85]Behemoth, Leviathan and Ziz[/size]

May I just add that I really do believe we should guard against calling these primordial creatures (Behemoth, Leviathan etc) the Devil, that is an injustice. Job calls them the first of God’s Ways, but they’re often still relevant to those seeking salvation through Christ under the Gothic orders of Providence because at those times he leads some of his his flock to them.

PS I am also the forum user Dominic. Niether login is merely an alias- they are both true and proper aspects of my personality which together form the conqueror that I am.

2

You mean God says of the Behemoth… What you cite are passages from God’s speech; not Job’s.

I think translation matters here (NSRV reads “It is the first of the great acts of God”), and this translation you cite seems to have led to your interpretation, that the first or original way of God was that of the Behemoth, as if God was the Behemoth before He adopted the way of Christ.

What I take you to be suggesting is that God tamed the Behemoth in Himself, and became Christ. Is this fair?

I would suggest as an alternative to your reading that God is simply describing God’s ways, which is taming or subduing the creatures of this world. God isn’t the Behemoth, nor has God ever followed the way of the Behemoth, but rather the Behemoth is God’s creature and God subdues it. This is God’s way, and God calls us to image Him (see Genesis 1:26-28, which is something you need to contend with).

In light of Genesis 1:26-28, when you say:

I think you are quite wrong. God calls us to tame them, and God wouldn’t call us to do this unless God thought that we could.

Lastly, when you say:

I think you are quite right. The Behemoth is a WILD creature; the Satan is something else.

Nevertheless, I think our response to both the Behemoth and the Satan are meant to be the same: we are to subdue them both, and bring them into the fold.

So while I think you are quite right, I also think you are quite wrong, for you seem to be assuming in your comment that the Satan is evil, and that this is why identifying the Behemoth with the Satan would be an injustice. You don’t say this explicitly, but that is the feeling that I get; and if I’m right about this, then I think you are quite wrong in your understanding.

The Satan isn’t evil, at least not in Job. And while I say that the Behemoth and the Satan differ, there is little difference between a wild creature and what the Satan is. The Satan is a creature that has lost faith in humankind and is (on the verge of) rebelling against us. A wild creature is a creature that has no reason to believe in humankind (nor does it have any faith to lose) and as such doesn’t trust us. So while they differ, our proper response to both is the same, namely to build their faith in us.

This is what Job is all about, and what Job accomplishes in his ordeal. He restores the Satan’s faith and subdues it, just as we are to build the Behemoth’s faith in us and subdue it.

3

Thankyou for you well thought out response. There are various valid interpretations of the Bible and in relation to the Behemoth I feel that the one in the OP is legitimate. Certainly, it is helpful to those who commune with the Heavens.

4

Actually, דַּרְכֵי is the word used and does best translate to way.
It is used throughout the Hebrew texts in phrases such as, “The Way of YWVH” or the like.
It is still used in form today for the same meaning.

The actual phrasing is דַּרְכֵי-אֵל, which does mean this is the “way of God”.
That said; it is being used doesn’t refer to a means by which God became.
Instead, it bears more on the order of God’s creation; actually strikingly bringing similarity to evolution some would say.

Here’s an example of the word in use:
מְשַׁלֵּב בְּיַחַד כַּמָה דַּרְכֵי לְמִידָהד
This means, “integrates together several ways of learning”.

The word “ways” in use refers to methods; with the meaning of doing, or means.
And what is being discussed is the creature and the method of God is creating and governing life.
Thereby, one of the first of God’s ways was the Behemoth.

However, the word Behemoth in English is a strange choice; honestly.
It’s more a transliteration than a translation.
It’s a basic word in Hebrew; it means cattle; and indeed is the same word used back in Genesis when describing the creation on day six; also referenced in Job about בְהֵמוֹת.

However, the word refers to general livestock or animals.
Creatures that are in general, livestock or general animal population of an area.

So what’s being described is that this animal is one of God’s first ways of creating.

That’s about all that is said in the Hebrew.

5

Why would God and Satan gamble over Job’s soul in the first place?

6

Don’t want to hijack the post, but what makes you think there is any gambling going on? There’s as much gambling in the book of Job as there is in a court case. The Satan is accuser, humankind/Job is accused, and God mediates between them. So God gambles with Job’s soul, yes, but only insofar as His recommendation of Job is meant to save humankind from the rebellion of the Satan.

So to answer your question more directly, God did what God did to save His creation. The alternative would (or could) have been civil war.

7

. note if the word behemoth means cattle then its almost synonymous with wealth because cattle represent wealth. This is true through out history and even in modern west . In modern west its beef. Americans are well off because they can afford to eat hamburgers and steaks more than lets says Europeans . this is actually noticeable when you travel through Europe . at the airport in europe their sandwiches are miserly with little meat heavy on bread .in America they jam the sandwich with meat . either country I just dump the bread and eat the meat . at European airports I just have to buy more sandwiches .I only eat meat when I travel because it more of power food than grain. so Europeans are poorer than Americans.

In my native tongue the word can be used to refer to cattle and is used often to refer to cattle even though it doesn’t really mean cattle linguistically speaking . its actual meaning if you reduce it to its bare form, its root word, which is a three letter word it means mysterious or opaque in the sense of something not clear or not understood.Moreover it doesn’t actually refer to cattle linguistically speaking … it refers to something that refers to cattle That word is sustenance form god or gift from god or even grace from god .so what is actually happening is something as follows. Behemoth refers to sustenance and sustenance refers to cattle . sustenance refers to cattle because they sustain people . we eat their meat and drink their milk. .when the word is used people of course don’t think of it that way . they just assume you are referring to cattle .

Now in our culture they say the reason why the cattle is referred to as behemoth because just as the word means cattle are mysterious beings . the mystery is as to why the cow produces more milk than its baby needs . . to the people this is mystery of divine nature . its the grace of god that created the cow that produces more milk than its off spring needs so we too get to have its milk.

The word is also used derogatorily to mean that the person is acting sheepish . this is because the cow is friends with humans even though we slaughter them and eat them. it’s a person who doesn’t know better sort of thing . used to refer to a mob of people who are clamoring to get at something like a prize or something or food. You shout at them telling them to stop acting like behemoths

Last thing . the word down here means four different animals , camels, cows , sheep and goats .in job in the beginning iwhen it gives an account of job’s wealth it doesn’t mention goats . it only mentions camels, cows and sheep. close enough . so settle for camel, cows, and sheep. horses , donkeys and the like not included .

,

8

It has two meaning; cattle (as in those a person owns), and cattle (as in those around the area; also just simply the general non-predatory animals of an area).
So it can be referring to either; though considering the context; it is likely the description is of the latter form.

9

So God is into litigation with an adversary?

10

I wouldn’t exactly say God is “into” it, but a lawsuit is a good metaphor for what we see in Job.

God doesn’t want this (just as any good master doesn’t want to see infighting among his subjects), but this is the situation God finds Himself in, and so He mediates between the Satan and humankind. God tries to address the Satan’s issue (its misgivings about humankind) with the impeccable example of Job.

11

One of the most profound insights in the book of Job is that god created everything, angels, humans and behemoths. Consequently, you have in the book a really amusing discussion of god in litigation with erring or “fallen” parts of himself. To me, that smacks of psychosis.

12

To me, this smacks of Jung’s interpretation of the book of Job, which I disagree with (but admittedly, not many would agree with mine!).

It seems to me that the “profound insight” of the book is not that God created everything, but that there are things in existence (the Satan) that God didn’t create and that have no place in God’s creation.

The book of Job upsets this dominant way of thinking. It upsets Job, who thinks this; it upsets his friends, who think this; and it even upsets God, who thinks this. Just look at the way God greets the Satan, “where did you come from?”, and God’s challenge to Job, “where were you when I did all these things?”

That God isn’t the creator of all that is comes as a shock to everyone in the book of Job (except maybe the Satan, who presumably knows its source).

(I realize that what I say here may conflict with what I said before, about God mediating between His subjects. I think we need to construe the Satan as an alienated and disgruntled creature, brought to the point of accusation and rebellion against the prevailing order instituted by humankind. It is this that God didn’t create and that has no place in God’s creation, even though it is ultimately rooted in a creature of God.)

13

Thestump,

Yes yes I know what you’re saying . I was just exploring the contrast between the three animals and the behemoth that god showed job . you can do that regardless i think. … these three animals each has its excellent qualities. The camel can carry so much and stay without water for so long . the ox , tremendous power and courage .i had a bull who defended the cows against lions goring one to death and getting killed in the fight .the lions though didn’t get any of the cows.we got there and found the bull dying from his wounds . we ate him. the sheep , you know love and affection . still they are all vulnerable in that they feed and clothe man who is actually their enemy who slaughter them . this is symbolic of man and Satan. Man works for Satan who wants to put him in hell . so its that vulnerability .

the behemoth is likened to an ox .so its strength and power .only its supernatural strength . if job had behemoth for his cattle no one could steal them from him and no one could kill them because spears can’t penetrate his skin . so again the theme of god answer is power. God is all powerful and job problem he is not. and you acquire that sort of power from faith because its not available here on earth. its in that place where the behemoth is at . the behemoth is in different world . that’s interesting because job got to take a look at that world . so job really got honored like no man before. and it comforted him because he knew his kids are well and alive there . see that all that he needed to know to be comforted . after that he shut his big mouth and said he will whine no more

14

Aly,
Did you stop to notice that I prefaced “profound insights” with “one of these”? Your apparent agenda is to assert a theological interpretation not everyone can believe in. This has nothing to do with Jung.

15

I did notice. It was my agenda to trounce what you think is one of the profound insights of the book. Or maybe not what you think is one of the profound insights, but rather what you think is a consequence of it.

It also happened to be the case that what you think is one of the consequences of one of the profound insights of the book corresponds to Jung’s thinking, except instead of calling God psychotic, as you do, he calls God unreflective, willful, amoral, etc. So yes, what you said does have something to do with Jung. But I raised him more as a point of interest, in case you weren’t aware of the similarity between your views on one of the profound insights of the book.

16

Aly, Aly, Aly!
I did not call God psychotic! Please read posts without the presumption of knowing what they say or do not say in advance. I’d say you have a shallow opinion of both the book of Job and of Carl Jung, but I would be in error for such a presumption. That you consider yourself above such errors simply makes me want to avoid any attempt to communicate with you.

17

You say:

But before this you say:

So if you are not calling God psychotic here, then please explain what you mean by “this smacks of psychosis”. I’m sorry if I’m slow in understanding, or for not reading you thoroughly before commenting, but I can’t see any other meaning here.

18

Aly,
The consequnce is stated in an 'If, then" semantic construction, not in any abolutist term that would imply anything more than an opinion. "If God created everything, then he is at war with himself in battles of good vs. evil. Apologies if my way of writing prompts confusion. The situation is set by the writer of Job, a writing I take to be allegorical, which is not to say that allegory is devoid of spitual insight. As for Jung, I see nothing in what I’ve read from him or about him that would support an assumption of deific schizophrenia.

19

Jung definitely understood the arbitrary, fickle nature of the Senex god, which is the one in Job. The term “deific schizophrenia” is fantastic, gotta love it. It cracks me up, so maybe I’ll be like God one day too and just direct my rods of justice and mercy down at people deciding on a whim whether to use one or the other.

20

Okay. There was no “if” or “then” in your post though, so it was received in “absolutist terms”. (Hate to be a stickler, but if I’m going to respond to something on here, I try to read people carefully, so that I actually respond to them; and so some of your previous comments suggesting otherwise of me were taken as a bit of an insult! (Wasn’t really offended, but I’m sure you know what I mean.))

As I said, he doesn’t phrase it in psychological terms like “psychosis” or “schizophrenia”, but rather he calls God “amoral”, “unreflective”, “unconscious”, “capricious”, etc, making God effectively a split personality, listening to the Satan one minute and Lady Wisdom the next.

For Jung it ends up being the same as the consequence of your conditional statement: God is “in litigation with erring or fallen parts of himself”. God accuses Job and defends Job. (It’s all there in the first chapter of Jung’s Answer to Job.)