The document provides commentary on the biblical reference to Leviathan in Job 41. It discusses the various interpretations of what creature Leviathan represents, with opinions ranging from whale to crocodile to unknown sea monster. The commentary notes that no single existing creature fully matches all the details provided, and Leviathan was likely an extinct sea creature known in ancient times. The document also provides context from other biblical references to Leviathan and discusses the challenges involved in capturing such a large aquatic creature.

1. JOB 41 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 [a]“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
With a hook you will never catch him,
And you cannot tie him with a rope.
Try it and you will go for a swim
And be considered a great dope.
The first thing we learn about this creature called the leviathan is that nobody has
come up with any creature that fits the description given in this chapter. Many
suggest it is the whale, and many others say it is the crocodile, but the fact is, neither
of these top choices through the ages will match the details we have here. Gill was
right when he wrote, “There are some things in the description of this creature that
seem to agree best with the crocodile, and others that suit better with the whale, and
some with neither.” Commentators who just choose one of these two popular choices
are made to look very silly when they try to make them conform to the details of this
passage. Wiser are those who say they do not know what this creature is rather than
pretend there are fire breathing whales or crocodiles. There is much humor in
reading commentators who hope you do not notice how ridiculous they are being
when they try to force their view into the text.
This passage is dealing with a creature that is unknown, and it is a mystery much
like other sea monsters in the literature of the world. This creature is mentioned in
other parts of the Bible as well, and so we know it was a creature of common
knowledge in that ancient world. Isaiah makes it a serpent creature:
“In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing
serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea”
(Isaiah 27:1).
The word "Leviathan" appears six times in the Bible:
1. Isaiah 27:1: "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan
the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the
sea."
2. Psalms 74:14: "Thou didst crush the heads of the Leviathan, thou didst give him for food to the

2. creatures of the desert." NIV
3. Psalms 104:25,26: "O Lord, how manifold thy works, in wisdom you have created them all. So is
this great and wide sea... there go the ships and the Leviathan which you have created to play
therein" (AV);
4. Book of Job 3:8 "May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse
Leviathan ";NIV
5. Book of Job 41:1-34:
As far as we know this sea creature does not now exist, but it was common enough
in the ancient world to produce worldwide stories about sea dragons. Sea faring
people must have seen this creature before they became extinct. The shocking stories
no doubt became exaggerated in the telling, but this description here is from God’s
own view, and so we can assume that God is not exaggerating. He made this
creature and so he knows it as no other, for no other could get close enough to study
it. The whale fits some of the time, but other texts make the whale impossible, and so
we are dealing here with an ancient extinct creature, which many consider to be a
dinosaur. It was huge and so the word leviathan has come to be used of anything
that is the largest of its kind. “It was a leviathan among the redwoods,” would be an
example.
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary - Cite This Source
Leviathan
“a transliterated Hebrew word (livyathan), meaning "twisted," "coiled." In Job 3:8,
Revised Version, and marg. of Authorized Version, it denotes the dragon which,
according to Eastern tradition, is an enemy of light; in 41:1 the crocodile is meant; in Ps.
104:26 it "denotes any large animal that moves by writhing or wriggling the body, the
whale, the monsters of the deep." This word is also used figuratively for a cruel enemy, as
some think "the Egyptian host, crushed by the divine power, and cast on the shores of the
Red Sea" (Ps. 74:14). As used in Isa. 27:1, "leviathan the piercing [R.V. 'swift'] serpent,
even leviathan that crooked [R.V. marg. 'winding'] serpent," the word may probably
denote the two empires, the Assyrian and the Babylonian.”
But that is not all. In ending His discourse, God called leviathan “a king over all the
children of pride” (Job 41:34), so the animal is also symbolic of Satan, whose
challenge to God instigated Job’s strange trials. He is “the great dragon...that old
serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation
12:9). Perhaps, therefore, the mysterious and notorious extinction of the dinosaurs is
a secular prophecy of the coming Day of Judgment when God “shall punish
leviathan” (Isaiah 27:1) and the “devil that deceived them” will be “cast into the
lake of fire...and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation
20:10). HMM

3. Our Daily Bread, Saturday, October 31.
The word leviathan has become synonymous with any large aquatic monster or
creature. In Modern Hebrew, it simply means "whale".
Leviathan is, of course, the canonical monster, the "dragon in the sea"
that haunted the imagination of the Hebrew poets and seers who wrote the Old
Testament, and the clerics who translated it into Greek, Latin and English.
The descriptions of his strength and size are vastly, immensely hyperbolic,
yet that is precisely the intention of their compositors: Leviathan himself
is beyond imagining.
BAR ES, "Job 41:1. Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook? — It is a great
question among learned men, what creature is meant by ‫,לויתן‬ leviathan. Our
translators were evidently uncertain respecting it, and therefore have given us here
and elsewhere, where the word occurs, the original term itself, untranslated. The
LXX., however, (who are followed in two instances by the author of the Vulgate,)
have not done so, but have everywhere rendered it δρακων, the dragon. But it is far
from being certain that in so doing they have given us the true meaning of the word.
It is much more probable that either the whale or the crocodile is intended. It is
evident the leviathan, mentioned Psalms 104:26, is an inhabitant of the sea, and the
description given of him is generally thought best to suit the whale. There (in the
great and wide sea) go the ships: there is that leviathan which thou hast made to
play therein. The same may be said concerning the leviathan, mentioned Psalms
74:14 . It also appears to be an inhabitant of the sea. ow the dragon and crocodile,
it is argued, have nothing to do with the sea, but only with rivers, and therefore
cannot be intended by leviathan here. Divers other reasons are also advanced to
prove that the whale is the creature meant. “That which inclines me,” says Henry,
“rather to understand it of the whale, is not only because it is much larger and a
nobler animal, but, because, in the history of the creation there is such an express
notice taken of it as is not of any other species of animals whatsoever; God created
great whales, Genesis 1:21. By which it appears, not only that whales were well
known in those parts in Moses’s time, who lived a little after Job; but that the
creation of whales was generally looked upon as a most illustrious proof of the
eternal power and godhead of the Creator. And we may conjecture that this was the
reason (for otherwise it seems unaccountable) why Moses there so particularly
mentions the creation of the whales; because God had so lately, in this discourse
with Job, more largely insisted upon the bulk and strength of that creature than of
any other, as the proof of his power.”
At the same time, however, that Mr. Henry thus delivers his opinion on the subject,
he acknowledges that many learned men were of a different mind; and, in
particular, observes of Sir Richard Blackmore, that though he admitted the more
received opinion concerning the behemoth being the elephant, yet he agreed with

4. the learned Bochart’s notion of the leviathan, that it is the crocodile, so well known
in the river of Egypt. Poole also seems to have been of the same judgment. “It is
evident,” says he, “that the Hebrew ‫,תנין‬ thannin, which is parallel to this word,
leviathan, is used of the crocodile, Ezekiel 29:3-4 ; Ezekiel 32:3. But I shall not
positively determine this controversy,” adds he, “but only show how far the text
may be understood of both of them, and then submit it to the reader’s judgment,
this being a matter wherein Christians may vary without any hazard. Only this I
will say, that whatever becomes of the behemoth of the former chapter, whether that
be the elephant or the hippopotamus, that doth not at all determine the sense of this
leviathan, but leaves it indifferent to the whale or the crocodile, as the context shall
determine, which, I confess, seems to me to favour the latter more than the former.
To which may be added, that it seems more probable that God should speak of such
creatures as were very well known to Job and his friends, as the crocodile was, than
of such as it was very uncertain whether they were known in those parts, and in
Job’s time.” The reader will observe, that the word leviathan is supposed to be
derived from ‫,לוי‬ levi, joined, or coupled, and ‫,תן‬ than, or ‫,תנין‬ thannin, a dragon,
that is, a large serpent, or fish, the word thannin being used both for a land-serpent
and a kind of fish. And, “after comparing what Bochart and others have written on
the subject, it appears to me,” says Parkhurst, “that the compound word ‫,לויתן‬
leviathan, the coupled dragon, denotes some animal partaking of the nature both of
land-serpents and fishes, and, in this place, signifies the crocodile, which lives as
well under water as on the shore.”
Dr. Dodd also agrees with Parkhurst, and the other learned men just mentioned,
that Bochart “has proved by arguments, strictly conclusive, that the crocodile must
be meant in this chapter.” It may be observed further here, that, although it might
have been expected, that the Creator should have singled out and have dwelt upon
two of the greatest of his works in the animal creation, the elephant and the whale,
the former the largest and most eminent of quadrupeds, and the latter of fishes, for
the display of his power and glory; yet, that naturalists have found great, if not
insuperable difficulties in their endeavours to apply the particulars of this
description to the whale. And all that can be said to solve these difficulties is, that
there are many different species of whales, several that are known, and probably
many more that are not known; and that although this description, in all its parts,
may not exactly suit any species of them which we know, there may be others in the
immense ocean with which we are not acquainted that it may suit; creatures which,
though comprehended under the general name of whales, may, in many respects, be
very different from, and much larger than, any that have been taken. But still it is
very improbable, either that Job should know any thing of such whales, or that
Jehovah, when reasoning with him and producing proofs of his power and
providence, should make his appeal to creatures with which Job had no
acquaintance. It seems, therefore, most probable that the crocodile is intended, and,
we think, would be certain, were it not that the leviathan is represented in some of
the passages where it is mentioned in Scripture, as we have observed, as an
inhabitant of the sea, whereas the crocodile is only found in rivers. But perhaps the
term leviathan does not always signify the same creature, but is put for different
animals in different places, especially for such as are of extraordinary bulk, or of

5. singular qualities. This verse, which speaks either of the impossibility, or rather of
the great and terrible difficulty of taking the leviathan with the hook, or line, or
such like instruments, may agree either to the whale or to the crocodile. As to the
whale, there can be no doubt, nor much doubt as to the crocodile; the taking of
which was generally esteemed by the ancients to be very difficult and perilous. Thus
Diodorus Siculus says, they cannot be secured but in iron nets. When Augustus
conquered Egypt, he struck a medal, the impress of which was a crocodile chained
to a palm-tree, with this inscription, “ one ever bound him before.” “In order to
take these animals,” says Thevenot, “they make a number of holes, or ditches, on the
banks of the river, which they cover with sticks, and things of the like kind;
afterward, when the crocodiles pass over these cavities, especially when the waters
rise in the river, which is the season of catching them, on account of their going
further off from the river at that time, they fall into the holes and cannot get out
again; in this confinement they are suffered to continue without food for several
days; after which they let down certain nooses with running knots, wherewith they
fasten their jaws, and then draw them out.” These nooses are the ‫,חבלי‬ cheblee, the
cords, here mentioned, and this shows that the word ‫,לשׁון‬ leshon, is not to be
understood of the tongue only, but of the whole fauces, or jaws. Or his tongue with a
cord — This clause should be rendered, Canst thou bind his jaws with a cord? Some
have objected, that this last clause cannot agree to the crocodile, because Aristotle,
Pliny, and some other ancient authors have affirmed that it has no tongue. But, 1st,
The notion that they have no tongues is a mistake, which has arisen from their
tongues being but small in proportion to their vast bodies, and withal fastened to
their under jaws. But that the crocodile hath a tongue is positively affirmed by
several ancient authors, and by the Hebrew writers, and the Arabians, to whom this
creature was best known, as also by later authors. But, 2d, It is not only of the
tongue this clause speaks, but of the whole jaws of the leviathan. Maillet also bears
testimony that the manner of taking these animals is very difficult, and sometimes
very remarkable; the most common method, he says, is to dig great trenches, or
ditches, along the ile, which are covered with straw, and into which the creatures
fall unawares. They are sometimes taken with hooks, baited with a quarter of a pig,
or bacon, which they are very fond of. — Heath and Dr. Young. Hasselquist,
speaking of the difficulty of taking this animal, says, “He frequently breaks the nets
of fishermen, if they come in his way, and they are often exposed to great danger. I
found a fishing-hook in the palate of the crocodile, which I dissected.” Hasselquist’s
Voyages, p. 216.
CLARKE, "Canst thou draw out leviathan - We come now to a subject not less
perplexing than that over which we have passed, and a subject on which learned men are
less agreed than on the preceding. What is leviathan? The Hebrew word ‫לויתן‬ livyathan is
retained by the Vulgate and the Chaldee. The Septuagint have, Αξεις δε δρακοντα; “Canst
thou draw out the Dragon?” The Syriac and Arabic have the same. A species of whale has
been supposed to be the creature in question; but the description suits no animal but the
crocodile or alligator; and it is not necessary to seek elsewhere. The crocodile is a natural
inhabitant of the Nile, and other Asiatic and African rivers. It is a creature of enormous
voracity and strength, as well as fleetness in swimming. He will attack the largest

6. animals, and even men, with the most daring impetuosity. In proportion to his size he
has the largest mouth of all monsters. The upper jaw is armed with forty sharp strong
teeth, and the under jaw with thirty-eight. He is clothed with such a coat of mail as
cannot be pierced, and can in every direction resist a musket-ball. The Hebrew ‫לוי‬ levi ‫תן‬
ten signifies the coupled dragon; but what this is we know not, unless the crocodile be
meant.
With a hook - That crocodiles were caught with a baited hook, at least one species of
crocodile, we have the testimony of Herodotus, lib. ii., c. 70: Επεαν νωτον συος δελεασᇽ
περι αγκιστρον, µετιει ες µεσον τον ποταµον, κ. τ. λ. “They take the back or chine of a swine,
and bait a hook with it, and throw it into the midst of the river; and the fisherman stands
at some distance on the shore holding a young pig, which he irritates, in order to make it
squeak. When the crocodile hears this he immediately makes towards the sound; and,
finding the baited hook in his way, swallows it, and is then drawn to land, when they
dash mud into his eyes, and blind him; after which he is soon despatched.”
In this way it seems leviathan was drawn out by a hook: but it was undoubtedly both a
difficult and dangerous work, and but barely practicable In the way in which Herodotus
relates the matter.
Or his tongue with a cord - It is probable that, when the animal was taken, they
had some method of casting a noose round his tongue, when opening his mouth; or
piercing it with some barbed instrument. Thevenot says that in order to take the
crocodile they dig holes on the banks of the river, and cover them with sticks. The
crocodiles fall into these, and cannot get out. They leave them there for several days
without food, and then let down nooses which they pitch on their jaws, and thus draw
them out. This is probably what is meant here.
GILL,"Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook?.... That is, draw it out of the
sea or river as anglers draw out smaller fishes with a line or hook? the question suggests
it cannot be done; whether by the "leviathan" is meant the whale, which was the most
generally received notion; or the crocodile, as Bochart, who has been followed by many;
or the "orca", a large fish of the whale kind with many teeth, as Hasaeus, it is not easy to
say "Leviathan" is a compound word of than the first syllable of "thanni", rendered
either a whale, or a dragon, or a serpent, and of "levi", which signifies conjunction, from
the close joining of its scales, Job_41:15; the patriarch Levi had his name from the same
word; see Gen_29:34; and the name bids fairest for the crocodile, and which is called
"thannin", Eze_29:3. Could the crocodile be established as the "leviathan", and the
behemoth as the river horse, the transition from the one to the other would appear very
easy; since, as Pliny says (a), there is a sort of a kindred between them, being of the same
river, the river Nile, and so may be thought to be better known to Job than the whale;
though it is not to be concealed what Pliny says (b), that whales have been seen in the
Arabian seas; he speaks of one that came into the river of Arabia, six hundred feet long,
and three hundred and sixty broad. There are some things in the description of this
creature that seem to agree best with the crocodile, and others that suit better with the
whale, and some with neither;
or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? into the river or sea, as
anglers do, with lead to it to make it sink below the surface of the water, and a quill or
cork that it may not sink too deep; but this creature is not to be taken in this manner;

7. and which may be objected to the crocodile being meant, since that has no tongue (c), or
at least so small that it is not seen, and cleaves close to its lower jaw, which never moves;
and is taken with hooks and cords, as Herodotus (d), Diodorus Siculus (e), and Leo
Africanus (f), testify; but not so the whale.
HE RY 1-9, "Whether this leviathan be a whale or a crocodile is a great dispute
among the learned, which I will not undertake to determine; some of the particulars
agree more easily to the one, others to the other; both are very strong and fierce, and the
power of the Creator appears in them. The ingenious Sir Richard Blackmore, though he
admits the more received opinion concerning the behemoth, that it must be meant of the
elephant, yet agrees with the learned Bochart's notion of the leviathan, that it is the
crocodile, which was so well known in the river of Egypt. I confess that that which
inclines me rather to understand it of the whale is not only because it is much larger and
a nobler animal, but because, in the history of the Creation, there is such an express
notice taken of it as is not of any other species of animals whatsoever (Gen_1:21, God
created great whales), by which it appears, not only that whales were well known in
those parts in the time of Moses, who lived a little after Job, but that the creation of
whales was generally looked upon as a most illustrious proof of the eternal power and
godhead of the Creator; and we may conjecture that this was the reason (for otherwise it
seems unaccountable) why Moses there so particularly mentions the creation of the
whales, because God had so lately insisted upon the bulk and strength of that creature
than of any other, as the proof of his power; and the leviathan is here spoken of as an
inhabitant of the sea (Job_41:31), which the crocodile is not; and Psa_104:25, Psa_
104:26, there in the great and wide sea, is that leviathan. Here in these verses,
I. He shows how unable Job was to master the leviathan. 1. That he could not catch
him, as a little fish, with angling, Job_41:1, Job_41:2. He had no bait wherewith to
deceive him, no hook wherewith to catch him, no fish-line wherewith to draw him out of
the water, nor a thorn to run through his gills, on which to carry him home. 2. That he
could not make him his prisoner, nor force him to cry for quarter, or surrender himself
at discretion, Job_41:3, Job_41:4. “He knows his own strength too well to make many
supplications to thee, and to make a covenant with thee to be thy servant on condition
thou wilt save his life.” 3. That he could not entice him into a cage, and keep him there as
a bird for the children to play with, Job_41:5. There are creatures so little, so weak, as to
be easily restrained thus, and triumphed over; but the leviathan is not one of these: he is
made to be the terror, not the sport and diversion, of mankind. 4. That he could not have
him served up to his table; he and his companions could not make a banquet of him; his
flesh is too strong to be fit for food, and, if it were not, he is not easily caught. 5. That
they could not enrich themselves with the spoil of him: Shall they part him among the
merchants, the bones to one, the oil to another? If they can catch him, they will; but it is
probable that the art of fishing for whales was not brought to perfection then, as it has
been since. 6. That they could not destroy him, could not fill his head with fish-spears,
Job_41:7. He kept out of the reach of their instruments of slaughter, or, if they touched
him, they could not touch him to the quick. 7. That it was to no purpose to attempt it:
The hope of taking him is in vain, Job_41:9. If men go about to seize him, so formidable
is he that the very sight of him will appal them, and make a stout man ready to faint
away: Shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? and will not that deter the
pursuers from their attempt? Job is told, at his peril, to lay his hand upon him, Job_
41:8. “Touch him if thou dare; remember the battle, how unable thou art to encounter
such a force, and what is therefore likely to be the issue of the battle, and do no more,
but desist from the attempt.” It is good to remember the battle before we engage in a

8. war, and put off the harness in time if we foresee it will be to no purpose to gird it on.
Job is hereby admonished not to proceed in his controversy with God, but to make his
peace with him, remembering what the battle will certainly end in if he come to an
engagement. See Isa_27:4, Isa_27:5.
JAMISO ,"leviathan — literally, “the twisted animal,” gathering itself in folds: a
synonym to the Thannin (Job_3:8, Margin; see Psa_74:14; type of the Egyptian tyrant;
Psa_104:26; Isa_27:1; the Babylon tyrant). A poetical generalization for all cetacean,
serpentine, and saurian monsters (see on Job_40:15, hence all the description applies to
no one animal); especially the crocodile; which is naturally described after the river
horse, as both are found in the Nile.
tongue ... lettest down? — The crocodile has no tongue, or a very small one
cleaving to the lower jaw. But as in fishing the tongue of the fish draws the baited hook
to it, God asks, Canst thou in like manner take leviathan?
K&D 1-5, "In Job_3:8, ‫ן‬ ָ‫ת‬ָ‫י‬ְ‫ו‬ ִ‫ל‬ signified the celestial dragon, that causes the eclipses of
the sun (according to the Indian mythology, râhu the black serpent, and ketu the red
serpent); in Psa_104:26 it does not denote some great sea-saurian after the kind of the
hydrarchus of the primeval world,
(Note: Vid., Grässe, Beiträge, S. 94ff.)
but directly the whale, as in the Talmud (Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talm. §178f.).
Elsewhere, however, the crocodile is thus named, and in fact as ‫ין‬ִ ַ also, another
appellation of this natural wonder of Egypt, as an emblem of the mightiness of Pharaoh
(vid., on Psa_74:13.), as once again the crocodile itself is called in Arab. el-fir‛annu. The
Old Testament language possesses no proper name for the crocodile; even the Talmudic
makes use of ‫קרוקתא‬ = κροκόδειλος (Lewysohn, §271). ‫לויתן‬ is the generic name of twisted,
and ‫תנין‬ long-extended monsters. Since the Egyptian name of the crocodile has not been
Hebraized, the poet contents himself in ְ‫ּך‬‫שׁ‬ ְ‫מ‬ ִ with making a play upon its Egyptian, and
in Arab. tmsâᐓ, timsâᐓ,
(Note: Herodotus was acquainted with this name (χάµψαι = κροκόδειλοι); thus is
the crocodile called also in Palestine, where (as Tobler and Joh. Roth have shown) it
occurs, especially in the river Damûr near Tantûra.)
Arabized name (Ew. §324, a). To wit, it is called in Coptic temsah, Hierogl. (without the
art.) msuh (emsuh), as an animal that creeps “out of the egg (suh).”
(Note: Les naturalistes - says Chabas in his Papyr. magique, p. 190 - comptent
cinq espèces de crocodiles vivant dans le Nil, mais les hieroglyphes rapportent un
plus grand nombre de noms déterminés par le signe du crocodile. Such is really the
case, apart from the so-called land crocodile or σκίγκος (Arab. isqanqûr), the Coptic
name of which, hankelf (according to Lauth ha. n. kelf, ruler of the bank), is not as yet
indicated on the monuments. Among the many old Egyptian names for the crocodile,
Kircher's charuki is, however, not found, which reminds one of the Coptic karus, as

9. κροκόδειλος of κρόκος, for κροκόδειλος is the proper name of the Lacerta viridis
(Herod. ii. 69). Lauth is inclined to regard charuki as a fiction of Kircher, as also the
name of the phoenix, αλλοη (vid., p. 562). The number of names of the crocodile
which remain even without charuki, leads one to infer a great variety of species, and
crocodiles, which differ from all living species, have also actually been found in
Egyptian tombs; vid., Schmarda, Verbreitung der Thiere, i. 89.)
In Job_41:1, Ges. and others falsely translate: Canst thou press its tongue down with a
cord; ַ‫יע‬ ִ‫ק‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫ה‬ does not signify demergere = deprimere, but immergere: canst thou sink its
tongue into the line, i.e., make it bite into the hook on the line, and canst thou thus draw
it up? Job_41:1 then refers to what must happen in order that the ְ‫ּך‬‫שׁ‬ ְ‫מ‬ of the msuh may
take place. Herodotus (and after him Aristotle) says, indeed, ii. 68, the crocodile has no
tongue; but it has one, only it cannot stretch it out, because the protruding part has
grown to the bottom of the mouth, while otherwise the saurians have a long tongue, that
can be stretched out to some length. In Job_41:2 the order of thought is the same: for
first the Nile fishermen put a ring through the gills or nose of valuable fish; then they
draw a cord made of rushes (σχοሏνον) through it, in order to put them thus bound into
the river. “As a perpetual slave,” Job_41:4 is intended to say: like one of the domestic
animals. By ‫ּור‬ ִ‫,צ‬ Job_41:5, can hardly be meant ‫ים‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְⅴ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ּר‬ ִ‫,צ‬ the little bird of the
vineyard, i.e., according to a Talmud. usage of the language, the golden beetle (Jesurun,
p. 222), or a pretty eatable grasshopper (Lewysohn, §374), but, according to the words of
Catullus, Passer deliciae meae puellae, the sparrow, Arab. ‛asfûr - an example of a
harmless living plaything ( ְ ‫ק‬ ַ‫ח‬ ִ‫,שׂ‬ to play with anything, different from Psa_104:26,
where it is not, with Ew., to be translated: to play with it, but: therein).
COFFMA ,"THE I VUL ERABUITY OF LEVIATHA (THE CROCODILE)
"Here we have the crowning description of a natural wonder, the leviathan
(crocodile), with an elaboration to which there is no parallel in the rest of the
Scriptures, forming a fitting climax to the gradually more and more elaborate
descriptions in Job 39-41."[1] Yes, "Leviathan is the name of a seven-headed sea-
dragon in the old Canaanite myths current prior to the Israelite occupation; but
that does not prove that Leviathan in the Book of Job is a mythological
creature."[2] "Once again the general features of the picture point to an actual
animal, in this case, the crocodile."[3] There is a consensus of practically all scholars
on this. "Most scholars hold the view that it is the crocodile which is described."[4]
Of course, "It must be admitted that there are many expressions here that a modern
scientist would not use in describing a crocodile; but the Book of Job is neither
modern nor scientific, but ancient and poetic."[5] D. G. Stradling tells us that,
"Leviathan is mentioned in six Old Testament passages: Psalms 74:14; 104:26;
Isaiah 37:2; Ezekiel 29:3-5; and twice in the Book of Job."[6] The other reference in
Job is Job 3:8.

10. COKE, "God's great power in the Leviathan.
Before Christ 1645.
Job 41:1. Canst thou draw out Leviathan— ‫לויתן‬ leviathan, is derived from ‫לוה‬
lavah, coupled, and ‫תן‬ ten, a dragon, i.e. a large serpent, or fish: as the word ‫תנין‬
tanin, is used both for a land serpent, and a kind of fish; so that, after comparing
what Bochart and others have written on the subject, it appears to me, says
Parkhurst, that the compound ‫לויתן‬ leviathan, the coupled dragon, denotes some
animal partaking of the nature both of land serpents and fishes, and in this place
signifies the crocodile, which lives as well under water as on shore. See Boch. tom. ii.
p. 769, who seems to have proved, by arguments strictly conclusive, that the
crocodile must be meant in this chapter. I would just observe, of the word occurring
in the Margin to chap. Job 3:8 of this book, that Parkhurst thinks it contains an
allusion to the punishment of some kind of criminals, who were cast to the
crocodiles to be devoured by them. Johnson, in his atural History of Quadrupeds,
p. 143, says, that among some of the Indians these animals were formerly kept for
this purpose. And I would just remark, that as these animals are found in many of
the eastern rivers, as well as in the ile, it does not follow at all from this
description, either that Moses was the writer of this Book, or any other person who
drew his ideas immediately from Egypt and the ile. This first verse relates to the
manner of taking the crocodile; and therefore the best commentary on it will be to
give an authentic account how it is done. The difficulty of this enterprise will appear
from Diodorus Siculus, who says, that they cannot be secured but in iron nets. When
Augustus conquered Egypt, he struck a medal, the impress, of which was a crocodile
chained to a palm-tree, with this inscription: " one ever bound him before."—"In
order to take these animals," says Thevenot, "they make a number of holes or
ditches on the banks of the river, which they cover with sticks, and things of the like
kind: afterwards, when the crocodiles pass over these cavities, especially, when the
waters rise in the river, which is the season of catching them, on account of their
going further off from the river at that time, they fall into the holes, and cannot get
out again: in this confinement they are suffered to continue without food for several
days; after which they let down certain nooses with running knots, wherewith they
fasten their jaws, and then draw them out." These nooses are the ‫חבל‬ chebel, the
cord here mentioned, and this shews that the word ‫לשׁון‬ lashon, is not to be
understood of the tongue only, but of the whole fauces. The clause should be
rendered, Canst thou bind his jaws with a cord? Maillet, speaking of these animals,
says, that the manner of taking them is very difficult, and sometimes very
remarkable: the most common method is, to dig great trenches or ditches along the
ile, which are covered with straw, and into which the creatures fall unawares.
They are sometimes taken with hooks, baited with the quarter of a pig, or bacon,
which they are very fond of. See Heath and Dr. Young. Hasselquist, speaking of the
difficulty of taking this animal, says, "He frequently breaks the nets of fishermen, if
they come in his way, and they are exposed to great danger. I found a fishing-hook
in the palate of the crocodile which I dissected." See his voyages, p. 216.

11. GUZIK 1-7, "a. Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook? After the discussion of
Behemoth in Job 40:15-24, now God called Job to consider another fearful monster,
Leviathan. This creature was first mentioned in Job 3:8; Job in that context
considered how sailors and fishermen would curse the threatening Leviathan, and
with the same passion he cursed the day of his birth.
i. Usually Leviathan is considered to be a mythical sea-monster or dragon that
terrorized sailors and fishermen. Yet in the context of Job 41:1-34, God does not
seem to consider Leviathan to be mythical at all. Some believe that Leviathan
describes some ancient dragon-like dinosaur that either survived to Job’s day, or
survived in the collective memory of mankind, so that God could refer to it as an
example. Others consider that in this context, Leviathan is nothing more than a
mighty crocodile.
ii. The name Leviathan means “twisting one” and is also used in other interesting
places in Scripture.
Psalms 74:12-14 refers to Leviathan as a sea serpent, and that God broke the head
of the Leviathan long ago, perhaps at the creation.
Psalms 104:26 also refers to Leviathan as a sea creature.
Isaiah 27:1 speaks of the future defeat of Leviathan, also associating it with a
twisted serpent that lives in the sea.
Isaiah 51:9 and Psalm 89-8-10 also speak of a serpent associated with the sea that
God defeated as a demonstration of His great strength, and identifies this serpent
with the name Rahab, meaning proud one.
Job 26:12-13 also refers to God’s piercing defeat of a fleeing serpent associated with
the sea.
b. Can you put a reed through his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook? God’s point
with this description of Leviathan is to show Job just how powerless he is against
this creature. There is nothing that Job can do against this mighty monster.
i. This makes the association between Leviathan – obviously, some dragon-type
creature, even if it were in this context only a mighty crocodile – and Satan even
more interesting. Satan is often represented as a dragon or a serpent (Genesis 3:1-
24; Revelation 12:1-17; Revelation 13:1-18). Therefore, Leviathan may be another
serpent-like manifestation of Satan.
ii. Indeed, as Adam Clarke says: “The Septuagint has Axeis de drakonta? ‘Canst
thou draw out the DRAGO ?’ The Syriac and the Arabic have the same.”
iii. Even as Job was powerless against Leviathan (as all men are), so he was also
powerless against an unleashed Satan set against him. Only God could defeat

12. Leviathan and Satan. “Satan may be typified here by behemoth and leviathan. Be
that as it may, the question left with Job was this: ‘Canst thou?’ Thus he was called
to the recognition of his own impotence in many directions, and at the same time to
a remembrance of the power of God.” (Morgan)
PULPIT, "Job 41:1-34
The crowning description of a natural marvel—the "leviathan," or crocodile—is
now given, and with an elaboration to which there is no parallel in the rest of
Scripture. It forms, however, a fit climax to the gradually more and more elaborate
descriptions of Job 38:39-41; Job 39:1-30; and Job 40:15-24.
Job 41:1
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? The word leviathan, or more properly
livyathan, which has previously occurred in Job 3:8, and is found also in Psalms
74:14; Psalms 104:26; and Isaiah 27:1, seems to be derived from ‫,לוי‬ "twisting," and
‫,תן‬ "a monster," whence the ‫תּנּין‬ or ‫תּנּים‬ of the Pentateuch and also of Job (Job 7:12),
Jeremiah (Jeremiah 9:11), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 29:3). It is thus a descriptive epithet
rather than a name, and has not unnaturally been used to designate more than one
kind of animal. The best modern critics regard it as applied sometimes to a python
or large serpent, sometimes to a cetacean, a whale or grampus, and sometimes, as
hero, to the crocodile. This last application is now almost universally accepted. The
crocodile was fished for by the Egyptians with a hook, and in the time of Herodotus
was frequently caught and killed (Herod; 2:70); but probably in Job's day no one
had been so venturous as to attack him. Or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest
down? rather, or press down his tongue with a cord? (see the Revised Version); i.e.
"tie a rope round his lower jaw, and so press down his tongue." Many savage
animals are represented in the Assyrian sculptures as led along by a rope attached
to their mouths.
PULPIT, "Jehovah to Job: the second answer: 3. Concerning leviathan.
I. THE A IMAL I TE DED.
1. A serpentine creature. This implied in the name leviathan, which signifies "a
wreathed or twisted animal," as distinguished from the tannin, or "long-extended
monsters" (Genesis 1:21).
2. An aquatic monster. Though amphibious as to its habits, the behemoth was
essentially a land animal; the entire description of leviathan points to a tenant of the
deep (verses l, 2, 31, 32).
3. A gigantia crocodile. Believed by earlier interpreters to be the whale, it is now
commonly accepted as the crocodile, which, equally with behemoth, frequented the

13. ile.
II. THE MO STER DESCRIBED.
1. Its untamable ferocity. (Verses 1-9.) The idea is presented in a variety of ways.
2. Its terrifying aspect. (Verses 12-24.) Jehovah invites attention to three points: the
parts of the animal, i.e. the separate limbs or members; the power of the brute, i.e.
the great strength of which it is possessed; and the comely proportion of the
creature, i.e. the beauty of his armour, or hide.
3. Its impetuous movement. One who saw two alligators fighting says "that their
rapid passage was marked by the surface of the water as if it were boiling" (verse
23). The animal also moves with such velocity as to leave behind it a bright white
trail of foam, as if the deep were hoary (verse 32).
4. Its incontestable supremacy. "Upon earth there is not his like, who is made
without fear." Hence all other creatures shrink before him. "He beholdeth all high
things: he is a king over all the children of pride," i.e. over all other beasts of prey.
III. THE LESSO I DICATED.
1. The impossibility of contending with God. If no man can hope successfully to
encounter a crocodile, how foolish must it be to think of striving against God (verse
10)!
2. The sovereignty of God's procedure in the world. If God in fashioning so
wonderful a beast had acted solely on his own irresponsible will, was it not probable
that he might in the same manner act in connection with man (verse 11)?
3. The probability of God's works in providence being marked by wisdom. If in the
structure of a crocodile there was so much appearance (and reality) of design, it was
not surely unreasonable to hope that the same characteristic of design would not be
absent from the Creator's doings in the higher realm of intelligence.
4. The likelihood of finding mysteries in God's dealings with men. If Job had been
asked to say why God had made so ferocious a beast, he could not have done so. It is
doubtful if any one can satisfactorily explain the introduction of carnivorous
animals among other peaceful creatures. Why, then, should there not be found
enigmas in the higher world of human life?
Learn:
1. The great power of God, who can control the fiercest of creatures.
2. The weakness of man, whom an unreasoning animal can affright.

14. 3. The wisdom of faith, which always trusts where it cannot understand.
BI 1-34, "Canst thou draw out Leviathan?
Behemoth and leviathan
The description of the “behemoth” in the preceding chapter and the “leviathan” here
suggests a few moral reflections.
I. The prodigality of created might. With what amazing force are these creatures
endowed! How huge their proportions! How exuberant their vital energy!
II. The restraining power of the Divine government. What keeps those creatures in
cheek? They are under the spell of the Almighty. To all creatures the Creator has set a
boundary beyond which they cannot pass.
III. The absurdity of man priding himself in his strength. “Let not the mighty man glory
in his might,” etc.
IV. The probability of mental giants in the universe. May there not be in the spiritual
domain as great a difference in the power of its tenants as there is in the physical?
V. The Divine mode of solving man’s moral difficulties. Great were the difficulties of Job
in relation to God’s government. God does not reason with Job, but shows Himself to
him, and this settles all dispute, and will ever do so.
VI. God’s work in nature should be studied, in order to impress us with his majesty. We
must remember the profoundly religions and serious character of the Eastern patriarch.
(Homilist.)
2 Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
BAR ES, "Canst thou put a hook into his nose - Or rather, a “rope,” or “cord.”
The word used here (‫אגמון‬ 'agmôn) means “a caldron,” 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, and that the
allusion is to the fact mentioned by Herodotus, that the crocodile was led about by the
Egyptians as a divinity, and that 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

15. 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; Pro_26:9; and then also a ring that was put
through the nose of an animal, in order to secure it. The instrument was probably made
sharp like a thorn or spike, and then bent so as to become a ring; compare Isa_37:29.
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, which he then throws
again into the water. “Rosenmuller.”
CLARKE, "Canst thou put a hook onto his nose? - Canst thou put a ring in his
nose, and lead him about as thou dost thine ox? In the East they frequently lead thy oxen
and buffaloes with a ring in their noses. So they do bulls and oxen in this country.
Bore his jaw through with a thorn? - Some have thought that this means, Canst
thou deal with him as with one of those little fish which thou stringest on a rush by
means of the thorn at its end? Or perhaps it may refer to those ornaments with which
they sometimes adorned their horses, mules, camels, etc.
GILL,"Canst thou put an hook into his nose?.... Or a rush, that is, a rope made of
rushes; for of such ropes were made, as Pliny (g) affirms;
or bore his jaw through with a thorn? as men do herrings, or such like small fish,
for the convenience of carrying them, or hanging them up to dry; the whale is not to be
used in such a manner: but the Tentyritae, a people in Egypt, great enemies to
crocodiles, had methods of taking thorn in nets, and of binding and bridling them, and
carrying them as they pleased (h).
JAMISO ,"hook — rather, “a rope of rushes.”
thorn — rather, a “ring” or “hook.” So wild beasts were led about when caught (Isa_
37:29; Eze_29:4); fishes also were secured thus and thrown into the water to keep them
alive.
BE SO , "Job 41:2. Canst thou put a hook — Hebrew, ‫,אגמן‬ agmon, a bulrush,
that is, a hook like a bulrush, with its head hanging down, as is expressed Isaiah
58:5 ; into his nose? — To hang him up by it for sale, or to carry him home for use,
after thou hast drawn him out of the sea or river. Or bore his jaw through with a
thorn? — Or with an iron hook, or instrument, as sharp as a thorn, wherewith thou
usest to carry small fishes. Heath translates the former clause, Canst thou put a
bandage about his nose? meaning, by the bandage, a rope of rushes, which was to tie
his mouth fast; as the thorn, or iron instrument, was to prevent him from getting the
bandage off. “It is usual,” Dr. Dodd says, “to this day, to fasten the jaws of the
crocodile when taken.”

16. COKE, "Job 41:2. Canst thou put an hook into his nose?— Canst thou put a
bandage about his nose? Heath. The word ‫אגמון‬ agmon, rendered bandage signifies
a rope of rushes. This was to tie his mouth fast, as the thorn was to prevent his
getting off the bandage. It is usual to this day, to fasten the jaws of the crocodile
when taken.
PULPIT, "Canst thou put an hook into his nose? rather, a reed, or a rope of reeds.
The exact meaning is doubtful. Or bore his jaw through with a thorn? A hook or
ring is meant, rather than a "thorn"—such a "hook" or "ring" as was commonly
used for keeping fish captive in the water, or for bringing prisoners of rank into the
presence of the monarchs who had captured them.
3 Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak to you with gentle words?
BAR ES, "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 here referred to
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.
CLARKE, "Will he make many supplications - There are several allusions in
these verses to matters of which we know nothing.
GILL,"Will he make many supplications unto thee?.... To cease pursuing him, or
to let him go when taken, or to use him well and not take away his life; no, he is too
spirited and stouthearted to ask any favour, it is below him;
will he speak soft words unto thee? smooth and flattering ones, for the above
purposes? he will not: this is a figurative way of speaking.

17. JAMISO ,"soft words — that thou mayest spare his life. No: he is untamable.
BE SO , "Job 41:3-6. Will he make supplications unto thee? — Doth he dread thy
anger or power? Or will he earnestly beg thy favour? It is a metaphor from men in
distress, who use these means to them to whose power they are subject. Will he
make a covenant with thee? — amely, to do thee faithful service, as the next words
explain it. Canst thou bring him into bondage and force him to serve thee? Wilt
thou play with him as with a bird? — As children play with little birds kept in
cages, which they do at their pleasure, and without any fear. Or wilt thou bind him
for thy maidens? — For thy little daughters, which he mentions rather than little
sons, because such are most subject to fear. Shall thy companions make a banquet of
him? — Hebrew, ‫,יכרו‬ jichru, concident, Vul. Lat., cut, or carve, him up? Shall thy
friends, who assisted thee in taking him, feed upon him, or make a banquet for him;
that is, for joy, that thou hast taken him? Shall they part him among the merchants?
— As is usual in such cases, that all who are partners in the labour and hazard may
partake of the profit also, and divide the spoil.
COFFMA , ""Will he make supplications unto thee" (Job 41:3)? There was an
ancient tale that crocodiles shed tears over the creatures they devoured,[7] from
which came the modern expression "crocodile tears," insincere, or hypocritical
tears. There seems to be a sarcastic reference to that here. "Will he make
supplications unto thee"? might very well mean, "Will the crocodile cry over you"?
"Wilt ...thou take him for a servant" (Job 41:4)? "Here the impossibility of
domesticating the crocodile is indicated."[8]
Heavenor described the import of these verses as God's questions of Job: "Could
Job consider the crocodile as a suitable object upon which to demonstrate his fishing
ability (Job 41:1)? or as a domestic servant (Job 41:4)? or as a plaything (Job
41:5)"?[9]
"Lay thy hand upon him; remember the battle, and do so no more" (Job 41:8). To
paraphrase this, "Meddle with him (the crocodile) in any of the above ways, and
you will rue the day."[10]
"Will not one be cast down at the sight of him" (Job 41:9)? "Any man who would
lay hands on Leviathan is warned not to do it, or he will regret it, since he will
collapse as soon as he sees him."[11]
"Who then is he that can stand before me" (Job 41:10)? The big point of the whole
chapter is right here. If Job cannot vanquish a fellow-creature, such as either
behemoth or leviathan, such a fact, "Contradicts Job's claim of any right or claim
against God."[12] Another thought that arises from this verse is, "If even the most
courageous man would not be so insane as to stir up leviathan,"[13] how could
anyone be so foolish as to contend with God? "If one of God's creatures is too

18. formidable to assail, what must be thought of the Creator of all things"?[14]
PULPIT, "Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words
unto thee? Ironical. Will he behave as human captives do, when they wish to curry
favour with their captors?
4 Will it make an agreement with you
for you to take it as your slave for life?
BAR ES, "Will he make a covenant with thee? - That is, will he submit himself
to thee, and enter into a compact to serve thee? 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? - Canst thou 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.
CLARKE, "Will he make a covenant - Canst thou hire him as thou wouldst a
servant, who is to be so attached to thy family as to have his ear bored, that he may abide
in thy house for ever? Is not this an allusion to the law, Exo_21:1-6?
GILL,"Will he make a covenant with thee?.... To live in friendship or servitude, as
follows;
wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? oblige him to serve thee for life, or
reduce him to perpetual bondage; signifying, that he is not to be tamed or brought into
subjection; which is true of the whale, but not of the crocodile; for several authors (i)
speak of them as making a sort of a truce with the priests of Egypt for a certain time, and
of their being tamed so as to be handled, and fed, and brought up in the house.
JAMISO ,"Can he be tamed for domestic use (so Job_39:10-12)?
PULPIT, "Will he make a covenant with thee? As captive monarchs do. Wilt thou
take him as a servant for ever? (comp. Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 15:17).

19. 5 Can you make a pet of it like a bird
or put it on a leash for the young women in
your house?
BAR ES, "Wilt thou 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 wilt thou bind him for thy 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.
CLARKE, "Wilt thou play with him - Is he such a creature as thou canst tame;
and of which thou canst make a pet, and give as a plaything to thy little girls? ‫נערותיך‬
naarotheycha; probably alluding to the custom of catching birds, tying a string to their
legs, and giving them to children to play with; a custom execrable as ancient, and
disgraceful as modern.
GILL,"Wilt thou play with him as with a bird?.... In the hand or cage: leviathan
plays in the sea, but there is no playing with him by land, Psa_104:26;
or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? or young girls, as Mr. Broughton renders
it; tie him in a string, as birds are for children to play with? Now, though crocodiles are
very pernicious to children, and often make a prey of them when they approach too near
the banks of the Nile, or whenever they have an opportunity of seizing them (k); yet
there is an instance of the child of an Egyptian woman that was brought up with one,
and used to play with it (l), though, when grown up, was killed by it; but no such
instance can be given of the whale of any sort.
JAMISO ,"a bird? — that is, tamed.

20. PULPIT, "Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? The Egyptians were especially
fond of pet animals, and Job's countrymen, it may be assumed, were the same.
Besides dogs, we find the Egyptians keeping tame antelopes, leopards, and monkeys.
A tame crocodile would certainly seem to be an extraordinary pet, but Herodotus
says that the Egyptians tamed them (2:39), and Sir Gardner Wilkinson informed me
that he had known some tame ones at Cairo. The Mesopotamian Arabs domesticate
falcons to assist them in the chase of the bustard and the gazelle. And this usage,
though not represented on the Assyrian monuments, is likely to have been ancient.
Or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? i.e. Wilt thou so secure him that he may be
delivered over to thy handmaidens, to be made their pet and playfellow?
6 Will traders barter for it?
Will they divide it up among the merchants?
BAR ES, "Shall thy companions make a banquet of him? - This is one of the
“vexed passages” about which there has been much difference of opinion. Gesenius
renders it, “Do the companions (“i. e.” the fishermen in company) lay snares for him?”
So Noyes renders it. Dr. Harris translates it, “Shall thy partners spread a banquet for
him?” The Septuagint renders it, “Do the nations feed upon him?” The Vulgate, “Will
friends cut him up?” that is, for a banquet. Rosenmuller renders it, “Will friends feast
upon him?” The word rendered “thy companions” (‫חברים‬ chabbâriym) means properly
those joined or associated together for any purpose, whether for friendship or for
business. It may refer here either to those associated for the purpose of fishing or
feasting. The word “thy” is improperly introduced by our translators, and there is no
evidence that the reference is to the companions or friends of Job, as that would seem to
suppose. The word rendered “make a banquet” (‫יכרוּ‬ yikârû) is from ‫כרה‬ kârâh, “to dig,”
and then to make a plot or device against one - derived from the fact that a “pitfall” was
dug to take animals (Psa_7:15; Psa_57:6; compare Job_6:27); and according to this it
means, “Do the companions, “i. e.” the fishermen in company, lay snares for him?” The
word, however, has another signification, meaning to buy, to purchase, and also to give a
feast, to make a banquet, perhaps from the idea of “purchasing” the provisions necessary
for a banquet. According to this, the meaning is, “Do the companions, “i. e.” those
associated for the purpose of feasting, make a banquet of him?” Which is the true sense
here it is not easy to determine. The majority of versions incline to the idea that it refers
to a feast, and means that those associated for eating do not make a part of their
entertainment of him. This interpretation is the most simple and obvious.
Shall they part him among the merchants? - That is, Shall they cut him up and
expose him for sale? The word rendered “merchants” (‫כנענים‬ ke
na‛anıym) means properly

21. “Canaanites.” It is used in the sense of “merchants, or traffickers,” because the
Canaanites were commonly engaged in this employment; see the notes at Isa_23:8. The
crocodile is never made a part of a banquet, or an article of traffic.
CLARKE, "Shall thy companions make a banquet - Canst thou and thy friends
feast on him as ye were wont to do on a camel sacrificed for this purpose? Or, canst thou
dispose of his flesh to the merchants - to buyers, as thou wouldst do that of a camel or an
ox? It is certain, according to Herodotus, lib. ii. c. 70, that they killed and ate crocodiles
at Apollonople and Elephantis, in Egypt.
GILL,"Shall thy companions make a banquet of him?.... The fishermen that join
together in catching fish, shall they make a feast for joy at taking the leviathan? which
suggests that he is not to be taken by them, and so they have no opportunity or occasion
for a feast: or will they feed on him? the flesh of crocodiles is by some eaten, and said
(m) to be very savoury, but not the flesh of the whale;
shall they part him among the merchants? this seems to favour the crocodile,
which is no part of merchandise, and to be against the whale, which, at least in our age,
occasions a considerable trade for the sake of the bone and oil: but perhaps, in those
times and countries in which Job lived, the use of them might not be known.
JAMISO ,"Rather, “partners” (namely, in fishing).
make a banquet — The parallelism rather supports Umbreit, “Do partners (in trade)
desire to purchase him?” So the Hebrew (Deu_2:6).
merchants — literally, “Canaanites,” who were great merchants (Hos_12:7, Margin).
K&D 6-9, "The fishermen form a guild (Arab. ᑑunf, sunf), the associated members of
which are called ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ ַ‫ח‬ (distinct from ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ֲ‫.)ח‬ On ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ָⅴ, vid., on Job_6:27. “When I came
to the towns of the coast,” says R. Akiba, b. Rosch ha-Schana, 26b, ”they called selling,
which we call ‫,מכירה‬ ‫,כירה‬ there,” according to which, then, Gen_50:5 is understood, as
by the Syriac; the word is Sanscrito-Semitic, Sanscr. kri, Persic chirıden (Jesurun, p. 178).
lxx ᅚνσιτούνται, according to 2Ki_6:23, to which, however, ‫יו‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ע‬ is not suitable. ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ֽע‬ַ‫נ‬ ְⅴ are
Phoenicians; and then, because they were the merchant race of the ancient world,
directly traders or merchants. The meaning of the question is, whether one sells the
crocodile among them, perhaps halved, or in general divided up. Further, Job_41:7 :
whether one can kill it ‫ּות‬ⅴ ֻ‫שׂ‬ ְ , with pointed missiles (Arab. shauke, a thorn, sting, dart), or
with fish-spears (‫ל‬ ַ‫צ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ִ‫,צ‬ so called from its whizzing, ‫,צלל‬ óáëëá). In Job_41:8 the
accentuation is the right indication: only seize upon him - remember the battle, i.e., thou
wilt be obliged to remember it, and thou wilt have no wish to repeat it. ‫ּר‬‫כ‬ְ‫ז‬ .ti t is a so-
called imperat. consec.: if thou doest it, thou wilt ... , Ges. §130, 2. ‫ף‬ ַ‫ּוס‬ is the pausal

22. form of ‫ף‬ ֵ‫ּוס‬ (once ôï˳óð, Pro_30:6), of which it is the original form.
The suff. of ‫ּו‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫ּוה‬ refers to the assailant, not objectively to the beast (the hope which
he indulges concerning it). ‫ה‬ ָ‫ֽב‬ָ‫ז‬ ְ‫כ‬ִ‫,נ‬ Job_41:9, is 3 praet., like ‫ה‬ ָ‫ֽמ‬ ָ‫ל‬ ֱ‫ֽא‬ֶ‫,נ‬ Isa_53:7 (where also
the participial accenting as Milra, occurs in Codd.); Fürst's Concord. treats it as part.,
but the participial form ‫ה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫ט‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ‫,נ‬ to be assumed in connection with it, along with ‫ֽה‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ט‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ‫נ‬ and
‫ת‬ ֶ‫ֽל‬ ֶ‫ט‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ‫,נ‬ does not exist. ‫ם‬ַ‫ג‬ ֲ‫,ה‬ Job_41:9, is, according to the sense, equivalent to ‫ם‬ַ‫ג‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ ֲ‫,ה‬ vid.,
on Job_20:4. ‫יו‬ፎ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ (according to Ges., Ew., and Olsh., sing., with the plural suff.,
without a plur. meaning, which is natural in connection with the primary form ‫י‬ፍ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫;מ‬ or
what is more probable, from the plur. ‫ים‬ ִ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ with a sing. meaning, as ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ָ ) refers to the
crocodile, and ‫ל‬ ָ ֻ‫י‬ (according to a more accredited reading, ‫ל‬ ָ ֻ‫י‬ = ‫ל‬ ָ‫)יוּט‬ to the hunter to
whom it is visible.
What is said in Job_41:6 is perfectly true; although the crocodile was held sacred in
some parts of Egypt, in Elephantine and Apollonopolis, on the contrary, it was salted
and eaten as food. Moreover, that there is a small species of crocodile, with which
children can play, does not militate against Job_41:5. Everywhere here it is the creature
in its primitive strength and vigour that is spoken of. But if they also knew how to catch
it in very early times, by fastening a bait, perhaps a duck, on a barb with a line attached,
and drew the animal to land, where they put an end to its life with a lance-thrust in the
neck (Uhlemann, Thoth, S. 241): this was angling on the largest scale, as is not meant in
Job_41:1. If, on the other hand, in very early times they harpooned the crocodile, this
would certainly be more difficult of reconcilement with v. 31, than that mode of catching
it by means of a fishing-hook of the greatest calibre with Job_41:1. But harpooning is
generally only of use when the animal can be hit between the neck and head, or in the
flank; and it is very questionable whether, in the ancient times, when the race was
without doubt of an unmanageable size, that has now died out, the crocodile hunt (Job_
7:12) was effected with harpoons. On the whole subject we have too little information for
distinguishing between the different periods. So far as the questions of Jehovah have
reference to man's relation to the two monsters, they concern the men of the present,
and are shaped according to the measure of power which they have attained over nature.
The strophe which follows shows what Jehovah intends by these questions.
COKE, "Job 41:6. Shall the companions make a banquet of him, &c.— Will the
companies of merchants drive a bargain for him? shall he be divided among the
merchants? Heath. Houbigant follows our translation: see the next note. See also Dr.
Shaw's travels, p. 426.
PULPIT, "Shall the companions make a banquet of him? rather. Shall the
companions make a traffic of him? By "the companions" we may understand either
the guilds or companies of fishermen, which might be regarded as engaged in
making the capture, or the travelling bands of merchants, who might be supposed
willing to purchase him and carry him away. As no one of these last could be
imagined rich enough to make the purchase alone, a further question is asked, Shall

23. they part him among the merchants? i.e. allow a number to club together, each
taking a share.
7 Can you fill its hide with harpoons
or its head with fishing spears?
BAR ES, "Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? - Referring to its
thickness and impenetrability. A common method of taking fish is by the spear; but it is
here said that the leviathan could not be caught in this manner. The common method of
taking the crocodile now is by shooting him; see the notes at Job_41:1. Nothing is more
remarkable in the crocodile than the thick and impenetrable skin with which it is
covered; and the description here will agree better with this animal than with any other.
Or his head with fish spears - The word here rendered “fish-spears” (‫צלצל‬
tse
lâtsal) means properly a “tinkling, clanging,” as of metal or arms, and then any tinkling
instrument. Here it evidently refers to some metal spear, or harpoon, and the name was
given to the instrument on account of its clanging noise. The Septuagint renders this
strangely, referring it to the “Phenicians,” or merchants mentioned in the previous verse
- “With their whole fleet they could not carry the first skin of his tail, nor his head in
their fishing-barks.”
CLARKE, "Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? - This refers to some
kind of harpoon work, similar to that employed in taking whales, and which they might
use for some other kinds of animals; for the skin of the crocodile could not be pierced.
Herrera says that he saw a crocodile defend itself against thirty men; and that they fired
six balls at it without being able to wound it. It can only be wounded under his belly.
GILL,"Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish
spears? This seems not so well to agree with the whale; whose skin, and the several
parts of his body, are to be pierced with harpoons and lances, such as fishermen use in
taking whales; and their flesh to be cut in pieces with their knives: but better with the
crocodile, whose skin is so hard, and so closely set with scales, that it is impenetrable;
See Gill on Eze_29:4. Or if the words are rendered, as by some, "wilt thou fill ships with
his skin? and the fishermen's boat with his head" (n)? it makes also against the whale;
for this is done continually, ships of different nations are loaded every year with its skin,

24. flesh, and the bones of its head.
JAMISO ,"His hide is not penetrable, as that of fishes.
BE SO ,"Job 41:7-8. Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? — A whale’s skin
you may; but the skin of a crocodile is so hard that an iron, or spear, will not pierce
it. It may, however, be understood also of the whale, for though they are taken at
this day by piercing their skin with barbed irons, this art and way of taking them is
but a late invention, and was not known in Job’s time; and, besides, he doth not
speak of the absolute impossibility, but of the great difficulty of taking them. Lay
thy hand upon him — Seize upon him, and take him by a strong hand, if thou darest
to do so. Remember the battle, &c. — But ere thou attempt that, consider what thou
art doing, and how hazardous thy enterprise is, and with what sort of a creature
and with what disadvantage thou art going to contend; and, as it follows, do no
more — Proceed no further; draw back thy hand, and be thankful for so great a
deliverance. Or, as ‫תוס‬ ‫אל‬ Š, al tosaph, literally signifies, non addes, that is, as
Mercer very justly explains it, if once thou lay thy hand upon him, or attempt to do
it, thou wilt no more remember the engagement with him, or any one else; for he
will quickly despatch thee. Heath, however, gives a different turn to the sense, thus:
Be sure thou strike home; mind thy blow; rely not on a second stroke.
PULPIT, "Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? The hippopotamus was
captured in this way by the Egyptians at an early date, and hence the idea of trying
the same mode of capture with the crocodile would naturally arise; but in the time
of Job it would seem that no one had been bold enough to attempt it. The skin of the
crocodile is penetrable in very few places, and his capture by a single man with a
harpoon, though now sometimes practised, is still a work of danger and difficulty.
Or his head with fish-spears? Fish-spears would have small effect on the head of a
crocodile, which is bony and covered by a very tough skin. There is a vulnerable
place, however, at the point where the head joins the spine, at which the ancient
Egyptians, when they ventured to attack the crocodile, were wont to strike.
8 If you lay a hand on it,
you will remember the struggle and never do it
again!

25. BAR ES, "Lay thine hand upon him - Prof. Lee renders this, very improperly, as
it seems to me, “Lay thine hand on thy mouth respecting him,” supposing it means that
he should be awed into silence by dread of the animal referred to. But the meaning of the
passage evidently is, “Endeavor to seize him by laying the hand on him, and you will
soon desist from the fearful conflict, and will not renew it.”
Remember the battle - Remember what a fearful conflict will ensue. Perhaps there
is an allusion to some fact fresh in the mind of Job, where such an attempt had been
made to secure the leviathan, attended with fearful disaster to those who had made the
attempt.
Do no more - Or, rather, “Thou wilt not do it again.” That is, he would be deterred
from ever renewing the attempt, or the conflict would be fatal to him.
CLARKE, "Lay thine hand upon him? - Mr. Heath translates, “Be sure thou
strike home. Mind thy blow: rely not upon a second stroke.” Mr. Good translates: -
“Make ready thy hand against him.
Dare the contest: be firm.”
He is a dangerous animal; when thou attackest him, be sure of thy advantage; if thou
miss, thou art ruined. Depend not on other advantages, if thou miss the first. Kill him at
once, or he will kill thee.
GILL,"Lay thine hand upon him,.... If thou canst or darest. It is dangerous so to do,
either to the whale or crocodile;
remember the battle; or "look for war", as Mr. Broughton renders it; expect a fight
will ensue, in which thou wilt have no share with this creature:
do no more; if thou canst by any means escape, take care never to do the like again; or
thou wilt never do so any more, thou wilt certainly die for it.
JAMISO ,"If thou lay ... thou wilt have reason ever to remember ... and thou wilt
never try it again.
COKE, "Job 41:8-9. Lay thine hand upon him, &c.— Be sure thou strikest home;
mind thy blow; rely not on a second stroke, Job 41:9. See, he is deceived in his
expectation: will he also faint away at the sight of them? Heath. But Houbigant
translates it according to his own reading, thus: Whoever shall lay his hand upon
him, shall not hereafter be nourished from his flesh: Job 41:9. Behold, his hope is
made vain; shall he therefore take away his gall? He observes, that the flesh of the
crocodile was esteemed excellent food, and that his gall was much used in medicine.
Hasselquist says, that the gall of the crocodile is good for the eyes: The Egyptians
make use of it as a certain remedy for barrenness in women, taking about six grains

26. internally; and outwardly they apply a pessus, made of cotton, with the gall of a
crocodile. They use the fat against the rheumatism, and a stiffness of the tendons;
esteeming it a powerful remedy, outwardly applied; there is a folliculus of the
bigness of a hazle-nut, under the shoulders of the old crocodile, containing a thick
matter which smells like musk. The Egyptians are very anxious to get it when they
kill a crocodile, it being a perfume much esteemed by the grandees.
GUZIK 8-11, "a. Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false: Job could not hope to
defeat Leviathan; it was simply beyond his power to do so.
b. Who then is able to stand against Me? The logical point is made. If Job cannot
contend with Leviathan (or even with Satan, whom Leviathan represents), how
could he ever hope to stand against the God who made and masters Leviathan? This
was another effective way of setting Job in his proper place before God.
i. “Having now said and largely proved that man could not contend with God in
power, he now adds, that he cannot do it in justice, because God oweth him nothing,
nor is any way obliged to him.” (Poole)
ii. There is a second, also important point: that God Himself was master over
Leviathan (everything under heaven is Mine). “By telling of his dominion over
Behemoth and Leviathan, the Lord is illustrating what he has said in 40:8-14. He is
celebrating his moral triumph over the forces of evil. Satan, the Accuser, has been
proved wrong though Job does not know it. The author and the reader see the entire
picture that Job and his friends never knew.” (Smick)
PULPIT, "Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. This is again
ironical, like Job 41:3-6. "Only just put forth thy hand against him—bethink thee of
war—do it once and no more.". The idea is that once will be enough. A man will not
live to do it a second time.
9 Any hope of subduing it is false;
the mere sight of it is overpowering.
BAR ES, "Behold, the hope of him is in vain - That is, the hope of taking him is
vain.

27. Shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? - So formidable is his
appearance, that the courage of him who would attack him is daunted, and his
resolution fails. This agrees well also with the crocodile. There is perhaps scarcely any
animal whose appearance would be more likely to deter one from attacking him.
CLARKE, "Behold, the hope - If thou miss thy first advantage, there is no hope
afterwards: the very sight of this terrible monster would dissipate thy spirit, if thou
hadst not a positive advantage against his life, or a place of sure retreat to save thine
own.
GILL,"Job 41:9
Behold, the hope of him is in vain,.... Of getting the mastery over him, or of taking
him; and yet both crocodiles and whales have been taken; nor is the taking of them to be
despaired of; but it seems the "orca", or the whale with many teeth, has never been taken
and killed (o);
shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? the sight of a whale is
terrible to mariners, lest their ships should be overturned by it; and some have been so
frightened at the sight of a crocodile as to lose their senses: and we read of one that was
greatly terrified at seeing the shadow of one; and the creature before mentioned is
supposed to be much more terrible (p).
JAMISO ,"the hope — of taking him.
cast down — with fear “at the (mere) sight of him.”
BE SO , "Job 41:9-10. Behold, the hope of him is in vain — That is, the hope of
taking, or conquering him. Shall not one be cast down, even at the sight of him? —
ot only the fight, but the sight of him is most frightful. Such is even the sight of the
whale to mariners, who fear the overturning of their vessel. And such is the sight of
the crocodile, by which alone some have been frightened out of their senses. one is
so fierce — Hebrew, ‫,אכזר‬ achzer, so resolute, that dare stir him up — When he
sleepeth or is quiet. This alludes to a custom of this creature, when sated with fish,
to come on shore and sleep among the reeds. Who then is able to stand before me?
— To contend with me his Creator, (as thou Job dost,) when one of my creatures is
too hard for him?
PULPIT, "Behold, the hope of him is in vain; i.e. the hope of capturing or killing
him. Shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? The very sight of the
savage and invulnerable animal is enough to make a man fall to the ground with
fear.

28. 10 o one is fierce enough to rouse it.
Who then is able to stand against me?
BAR ES, "None is so fierce that dare stir him up - No one has courage to
rouse and provoke him.
Who then is able to stand before me? - The meaning of this is plain. It is, “If one
of my creatures is so formidable that man dare not attack it, how can he contend with
the great Creator? This may perhaps be designed as a reproof of Job. He had expressed a
desire to carry his cause before God, and to urge argument before him in vindication of
himself. God here shows him how hopeless must be a contest with the Almighty. Man
trembles and is disarmed of his courage by even the sight of one of the creatures of God.
Overpowered with fear, he retires from the contemplated contest, and flees away. How
then could he presume to contend with God? What hope could he have in a contest with
him?
CLARKE, "None is so fierce that dare stir him up - The most courageous of
men dare not provoke the crocodile to fight, or even attempt to rouse him, when, sated
with fish, he takes his repose among the reeds. The strongest of men cannot match him.
Who then is able - If thou canst not stand against the crocodile, one of the creatures
of my hand, how canst thou resist me, who am his Maker? This is the use which God
makes of the formidable description which he has thus far given of this terrible animal.
GILL,"None is so fierce that dare stir him up,.... This seems best to agree with the
crocodile, who frequently lies down and sleeps on the ground (q), and in the water by
night (r); see Eze_29:3; when it is very dangerous to arouse him; and few, if any so
daring, have courage enough to do it: though whales have been seen lying near shore
asleep, and looked like rocks, even forty of them together (s);
who then is able to stand before me? This is the inference the Lord draws from
hence, or the use he makes of it; that if this creature is so formidable and terrible, that it
is dangerous to arouse and provoke him, and there is no standing before him or against
him; then how should anyone be able to stand before the Lord, who made this creature,
whenever he is angry? see Psa_76:7.
HE RY, "II. Thence he infers how unable he was to contend with the Almighty.
None is so fierce, none so fool-hardy, that he dares to stir up the leviathan (Job_41:10),
it being known that he will certainly be too hard for them; and who then is able to stand
before God, either to impeach and arraign his proceedings or to out-face the power of his
wrath? If the inferior creatures that are put under the feet of man, and over whom he has

29. dominion, keep us in awe thus, how terrible must the majesty of our great Lord be, who
has a sovereign dominion over us and against whom man has been so long in rebellion!
Who can stand before him when once he is angry?
JAMISO ,"fierce — courageous. If a man dare attack one of My creatures (Gen_
49:9; Num_24:9), who will dare (as Job has wished) oppose himself (Psa_2:2) to Me,
the Creator? This is the main drift of the description of leviathan.
K&D 10-11, "One sees from these concluding inferences, thus applied, what is the
design, in the connection of this second speech of Jehovah, of the reference to behêmoth
and leviathan, which somewhat abruptly began in Job_40:15. If even the strength of one
of God's creatures admits no thought of being able to attack it, how much more should
the greatness of the Creator deter man from all resistance! For no one has any claim on
God, so that he should have the right of appearing before Him with a rude challenge.
Every creature under heaven is God's; man, therefore, possesses nothing that was not
God's property and gift, and he must humbly yield, whether God gives or takes away. ‫ּא‬‫ל‬,
Job_41:10, is not directly equivalent to ‫ין‬ ֵ‫,א‬ but the clause is exclamatory. ‫יעורנו‬ Chethîb,
‫יעירנו‬ Kerî, is the Palestine reading, the reverse the Babylonian; the authorized text
(chiefly without a Kerî) is ‫וּ‬ ֶ‫עוּר‬ְ‫י‬ from ‫עוּר‬ in a transitive signification (ᅚγείρειν), as ‫,שׁוּב‬
Job_39:12, comp. Job_42:10. The meaning of ‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ ַ‫ימ‬ ִ ְ‫ק‬ ִ‫ה‬ is determined according to ‫ם‬ ֵ ַ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫א‬ַ‫:ו‬
to anticipate, viz., by gifts presented as a person is approaching the giver (Arab. aqdama).
‫,הוּא‬ Job_41:11, is neutral, as Job_13:16; Job_15:9; Job_31:11, Job_31:28. ‫ת‬ ַ‫ח‬ ַ is virtually
a subj.: that which is under ... . After these apparently epiphonematic verses (2 and 3),
one might now look for Job's answer. But the description of the leviathan is again taken
up, and in fact hitherto it was only the invincibility of the animal that was spoken of; and
yet it is not so described that this picture might form the exact pendent of the preceding.
ELLICOTT, "(10) one is so fierce that dare stir him up.—“If, therefore, the
creatures of My hand strike so much terror, how far more terrible must I be? If
thou canst not save thyself from them, how much less canst thou be saved without
Me?” (See Job 40:14.) The first clause may be understood thus: “He is not so cruel
(the common meaning of the word rendered fierce)—i.e., to himself—that he should
venture to rouse him up.”
PULPIT, " one is so fierce that dare stir him up. The crocodile is often seen asleep,
or nearly asleep, upon sand-banks washed by the ile. He would be a bold man who
should creep near, and stir him up. Who then is able to stand before me? Here we
reach the point whereto the whole argument has been working up. If man cannot
cope with creatures, which are the work of God's hands, how much leas can he
presume to cope with him who is their Maker!

30. 11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.
BAR ES, "Who hath prevented me? - As this verse is here rendered, its
meaning, and the reason why it is introduced, are not very apparent. It almost looks,
indeed, as if it were an interpolation, or had been introduced from some other place, and
torn from its proper connection. Dr. Harris proposes to remove the principal difficulty
by translating it,
“Who will stand before me, yea, presumptuously?
Whatsoever is beneath the whole heaven is mine.
I cannot be confounded at his limbs and violence,
Nor at his power, or the strength of his frame.”
It may be doubted, however, whether the original will admit of this translation.
Rosenmuller, Umbreit, and Noyes, unite in supposing the meaning to be, “Who has done
me a favor, that I must repay him?” But perhaps the true idea of the passage may be
arrived at by adverting to the meaning of the word rendered “prevented” - ‫קדם‬ qâdam. It
properly means in the Piel, to go before; to precede; to anticipate, Psa_17:13; Psa_
119:148. Then it means to rush upon suddenly; to seize; to go to meet anyone either for
succor, Psa_59:11, or for a different purpose. Isa_37:33, “no shield shall come up against
her.” ‫יקדמנה‬ yaqâdamenâh “i. e.” against the city. So Job_30:27, “The days of affliction
prevented me.” A similar meaning occurs in the Hiphil form in Amo_9:10, “The evil
shall not overtake us nor prevent us;” that is, shall not rush upon us as if by anticipation,
or when we are off our guard.
If some idea of this kind be supposed to be conveyed by the word here, it will probably
express the true sense. “Who is able to seize upon me suddenly, or when I am off my
guard; to anticipate my watchfulness and my power of resistance so as to compel me to
recompense him, or so to overmaster me as to lay me under obligation to confer on him
the favors which he demands?” There may be an allusion to the manner in which wild
beasts are taken, when the hunter springs his gin suddenly, anticipates the power of the
animal, rushes unexpectedly upon him, and compels him to yield. God says that no one
could thus surprise and overpower him. Thus explained, the sentiment agrees with the
argument which the Almighty is presenting. He is showing his right to reign and do all
his pleasure. He appeals, in proof of this, to his great and mighty works, and especially
to those specimens of the animal creation which “man” could not tame or overcome. The
argument is this: “If man cannot surprise and subdue these creatures of the Almighty,
and compel “them” to render him service, how can he expect to constrain the Creator
himself to be tributary to him, or to grant him the favors which he demands?”
Whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine - That is, “All belong to me; all

31. are subject to me; all are mine, to be conferred on whom I please. No one can claim them
as his own: no one can wrest them from me.” This claim to the proprietorship of all
created things, is designed “here” to show to Job that over a Being thus supreme man
could exert no control. It is his duty, therefore, to submit to him without a complaint,
and to receive with gratitude what he chooses to confer.
CLARKE, "Who hath prevented me - Who is it that hath laid me under
obligation to him? Do I need my creatures? All under the heavens is my property.
GILL,"Who hath prevented me, that one should repay him?.... First given me
something that was not my own, and so laid me under an obligation to him to make a
return. The apostle seems to have respect to this passage, Rom_11:35;
whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine; the fowls of the air, the cattle on
a thousand hills, the fulness of the earth; gold, silver: precious stones, &c. All things are
made by him, are his property and at his dispose; and therefore no man on earth can
give him what he has not a prior right unto; see Psa_24:1.
HE RY, "God, having in the foregoing verses shown Job how unable he was to deal
with the leviathan, here sets forth his own power in that massy mighty creature. Here is,
I. God's sovereign dominion and independency laid down, Job_41:11. 1. That he is
indebted to none of his creatures. If any pretend he is indebted to them, let them make
their demand and prove their debt, and they shall receive it in full and not by
composition: “Who has prevented me?” that is, “who has laid any obligations upon me
by any services he has done me? Who can pretend to be before-hand with me? If any
were, I would not long be behind-hand with them; I would soon repay them.” The
apostle quotes this for the silencing of all flesh in God's presence, Rom_11:35. Who hath
first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? As God does not inflict
upon us the evils we have deserved, so he does bestow upon us the favours we have not
deserved. 2. That he is the rightful Lord and owner of all the creatures: “Whatsoever is
under the whole heaven, animate or inanimate, is mine (and particularly this leviathan),
at my command and disposal, what I have an incontestable property in and dominion
over.” All is his; we are his, all we have and do; and therefore we cannot make God our
debtor; but of thy own, Lord, have we given thee. All is his, and therefore, if he were
indebted to any, he has wherewithal to repay them; the debt is in good hands. All is his,
and therefore he needs not our services, nor can he be benefited by them. If I were
hungry I would not tell thee, for the world is mind and the fulness thereof, Psa_50:12.
JAMISO ,"prevented — done Me a favor first: anticipated Me with service (Psa_
21:3). None can call Me to account (“stand before Me,” Job_41:10) as unjust, because I
have withdrawn favors from him (as in Job’s case): for none has laid Me under a prior
obligation by conferring on Me something which was not already My own. What can
man give to Him who possesses all, including man himself? Man cannot constrain the
creature to be his “servant” (Job_41:4), much less the Creator.

32. BE SO , "Job 41:11. Who hath prevented me? — amely, with offices or services
done for me, and thereby hath laid the first obligation upon me, for which I am
indebted to him? That I should repay him? — Should be engaged to requite his
favours? Who came beforehand with me in kindnesses? inasmuch as all men, and
all things under heaven, are mine, made by my hand, and enriched with all their
endowments by my favour. The apostle quotes this sentiment for the silencing of all
flesh in God’s presence, (Romans 11:35,) Who hath first given to him, and it shall be
recompensed to him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things.
As God doth not inflict upon us the evils we have deserved, so he doth bestow upon
us the favours we have not deserved. Having said, and largely proved, that man
could not contend with God in power, he now adds that he cannot contend with him
in, or with respect to justice; because God oweth him nothing, nor is any way
obliged to him: which having briefly hinted, to prevent an objection, he returns to
his former argument, the description of leviathan.
ELLICOTT, "(11) Who hath prevented me?—It is manifest that this appeal would
come more appropriately at the end of the following detailed description than, as it
does here, just before it. “Who hath prevented me,” &c., of course means, Who hath
first given to me, that I should repay him?
PULPIT, "Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? i.e. "Who hath laid me
under any obligation, so that I should be bound to fall in with his views, and take
such a course as he might prescribe?" The allusion is to Job's persistent demand for
a hearing—a controversy (Job 9:34, Job 9:35; Job 10:3; Job 13:3, Job 13:22; Job
23:3-7, etc.)—a trial, in which he shall plead with God, and God with him, upon
even terms as it were, and so the truth concerning him, his sins, his integrity, his
sufferings, and their cause or causes, shall be made manifest. God resists any and
every claim that is made on him to justify himself and his doings to a creature. He is
not a debtor to any. If he explains himself to any extent, if he condescends to give an
account of any of his doings, it is of pure grace and favour. It has been observed that
we might have expected this to be the conclusion of the entire discourse begun in
Job 38:1-41; and that no doubt would have been, according to ordinary laws of
human composition, its more proper place. But Hebrew poetry is erratic, and pays
little regard to logical lawn If anything important has been omitted in its more
proper place, it is inserted in one which is, humanly speaking, less proper. The
details concerning the crocodile, which are calculated to deepen the general
impression, having been passed over where we might have expected them, are here
subjoined, as filling out the description of Job 38:1-10.
12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,

33. its strength and its graceful form.
BAR ES, "I will not conceal his parts - This is the commencement of a more
particular description of the animal than had been before given. In the previous part of
the chapter, the remarks are general, speaking of it merely as one of great power, and not
to be taken by any of the ordinary methods. A description follows of the various parts of
the animal, all tending to confirm this general impression, and to fill the hearer with a
deep conviction of his formidable character. The words rendered, “I will not conceal,”
mean, “I will not be silent;” that is, he would speak of them. The description which
follows of the “parts” of the animal refers particularly to his mouth, his teeth, his scales,
his eyelids, his nostrils, his neck, and his heart.
Nor his comely proportion - The crocodile is not an object of beauty, and the
animal described here is not spoken of as one of beauty, but as one of great power and
fierceness. The phrase used here (‫ערכוּ‬ ‫חין‬ chıyn ‛êrekô) means properly “the grace of his
armature,” or the beauty of his armor. It does not refer to the beauty of the animal as
such, but to the armor or defense which it had. Though there might be no beauty in an
animal like the one here described, yet there might be a “grace” or fitness in its means of
defense which could not fail to attract admiration. This is the idea in the passage. So
Gesenius, Umbreit, and Noyes render it.
CLARKE, "I will not conceal his parts - This is most certainly no just translation
of the original. The Vulgate is to this effect: I will not spare him: nor yield to his powerful
words, framed for the purpose of entreaty.
Mr. Good applies it to leviathan: -
“I cannot be confounded at his limbs and violence;
The strength and structure of his frame.”
The Creator cannot be intimidated at the most formidable of his own works: man may
and should tremble; God cannot.
GILL,"I will not conceal his parts,.... The parts of the leviathan; or "his bars", the
members of his body, which are like bars of iron:
nor his power; which is very great, whether of the crocodile or the whale:
nor his comely proportion; the symmetry of his body, and the members of it; which,
though large, every part is in just proportion to each other.
HE RY 12-32, "II. The proof and illustration of it, from the wonderful structure of
the leviathan, Job_41:12.

34. 1. The parts of his body, the power he exerts, especially when he is set upon, and the
comely proportion of the whole of him, are what God will not conceal, and therefore
what we must observe and acknowledge the power of God in. Though he is a creature of
monstrous bulk, yet there is in him a comely proportion. In our eye beauty lies in that
which is small (inest sua gratia parvis - little things have a gracefulness all their own)
because we ourselves are so; but in God's eye even the leviathan is comely; and, if he
pronounce even the whale, event he crocodile, so, it is not for us to say of any of the
works of his hands that they are ugly of ill-favoured; it is enough to say so, as we have
cause, of our own works. God here goes about to give us an anatomical view (as it were)
of the leviathan; for his works appear most beautiful and excellent, and his wisdom and
power appear most in them, when they are taken in pieces and viewed in their several
parts and proportions. (1.) The leviathan, even prima facie - at first sight, appears
formidable and inaccessible, Job_41:13, Job_41:14. Who dares come so near him while
he is alive as to discover or take a distinct view of the face of the garment, the skin with
which he is clothed as with a garment, so near him as to bridle him like a horse and so
lead him away, so near him as to be within reach of his jaws, which are like a double
bridle? Who will venture to look into his mouth, as we do into a horse's mouth? He that
opens the doors of his face will see his teeth terrible round about, strong and sharp, and
fitted to devour; it would make a man tremble to think of having a leg or an arm between
them. (2.) His scales are his beauty and strength, and therefore his pride, Job_41:15-17.
The crocodile is indeed remarkable for his scales; if we understand it of the whale, we
must understand by these shields (for so the word is) the several coats of his skin; or
there might be whales in that country with scales. That which is remarkable concerning
the scales is that they stick so close together, by which he is not only kept warm, for no
air can pierce him, but kept safe, for no sword can pierce him through those scales.
Fishes, that live in the water, are fortified accordingly by the wisdom of Providence,
which gives clothes as it gives cold. (3.) He scatters terror with his very breath and looks;
if he sneeze or spout up water, it is like a light shining, either with the froth or the light
of the sun shining through it, Job_41:18. The eyes of the whale are reported to shine in
the night-time like a flame, or, as here, like the eye-lids of the morning; the same they
say of the crocodile. The breath of this creature is so hot and fiery, from the great natural
heat within, that burning lamps and sparks of fire, smoke and a flame, are said to go out
of his mouth, even such as one would think sufficient to set coals on fire, Job_41:19-21.
Probably these hyperbolical expressions are used concerning the leviathan to intimate
the terror of the wrath of God, for that is it which all this is designed to convince us of.
Fire out of his mouth devours, Psa_18:7, Psa_18:8. The breath of the Almighty, like a
stream of brimstone, kindles Tophet, and will for ever keep it burning, Isa_30:33. The
wicked one shall be consumed with the breath of his mouth, 2Th_2:8. (4.) He is of
invincible strength and most terrible fierceness, so that he frightens all that come in his
way, but is not himself frightened by any. Take a view of his neck, and there remains
strength, Job_41:22. his head and his body are well set together. Sorrow rejoices (or
rides in triumph) before him, for he makes terrible work wherever he comes. Or, Those
storms which are the sorrow of others are his joys; what is tossing to others is dancing to
him. His flesh is well knit, Job_41:23. The flakes of it are joined so closely together, and
are so firm, that it is hard to pierce it; he is as if he were all bone. His flesh is of brass,
which Job had complained his was not, Job_6:12. His heart is as firm as a stone, Job_
41:24. He has spirit equal to his bodily strength, and, though he is bulky, he is sprightly,
and not unwieldy. As his flesh and skin cannot be pierced, so his courage cannot be
daunted; but, on the contrary, he daunts all he meets and puts them into a consternation
(Job_41:25): When he raises up himself like a moving mountain in the great waters even
the mighty are afraid lest he should overturn their ships or do them some other

35. mischief. By reason of the breakings he makes in the water, which threaten death, they
purify themselves, confess their sins, betake themselves to their prayers, and get ready
for death. We read (Job_3:8) of those who, when they raise up a leviathan, are in such a
fright that they curse the day. It was a fear which, it seems, used to drive some to their
curses and others to their prayers; for, as now, so then there were seafaring men of
different characters and on whom the terrors of the sea have contrary effects; but all
agree there is a great fright among them when the leviathan raises up himself. (5.) All
the instruments of slaughter that are used against him do him no hurt and therefore are
not error to him, Job_41:26-29. The sword and the spear, which wound nigh at hand,
are nothing to him; the darts, arrows, and sling-stones, which wound at a distance, do
him no damage; nature has so well armed him cap-a-pie - at all points, against them all.
The defensive weapons which men use when they engage with the leviathan, as the
habergeon, or breast-plate, often serve men no more than their offensive weapons; iron
and brass are to him as straw and rotten wood, and he laughs at them. It is the picture
of a hard-hearted sinner, that despises the terrors of the Almighty and laughs at all the
threatenings of his word. The leviathan so little dreads the weapons that are used against
him that, to show how hardy he is, he chooses to lie on the sharp stones, the sharp-
pointed things (Job_41:30), and lies as easy there as if he lay on the soft mire. Those
that would endure hardness must inure themselves to it. (6.) His very motion in the
water troubles it and puts it into a ferment, Job_41:31, Job_41:32. When he rolls, and
tosses, and makes a stir in the water, or is in pursuit of his prey, he makes the deep to
boil like a pot, he raises a great froth and foam upon the water, such as is upon a boiling
pot, especially a pot of boiling ointment; and he makes a path to shine after him, which
even a ship in the midst of the sea does not, Pro_30:19. One may trace the leviathan
under water by the bubbles on the surface; and yet who can take that advantage against
him in pursuing him? Men track hares in the snow and kill them, but he that tracks the
leviathan dares not come near him.
JAMISO ,"I will not conceal — a resumption of the description broken off by the
digression, which formed an agreeable change.
his power — literally, “the way,” that is, true proportion or expression of his strength
(so Hebrew, Deu_19:4).
comely proportion — literally, “the comeliness of his structure” (his apparatus: so
“suit of apparel” Jdg_17:10) [Maurer]. Umbreit translates, “his armor.” But that follows
after.
K&D 12-14, "The Kerî ‫לו‬ authorized by the Masora assumes an interrogative
rendering: as to it, should I be silent about its members (‫לו‬ at the head of the clause, as
Lev_7:7-9; Isa_9:2), - what perhaps might appear more poetic to many. ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫ר‬ ֱ‫ֽח‬ ֶ‫ה‬ (once,
Job_11:3, to cause to keep silence) here, as usually: to be silent. ‫יו‬ ָ ַ , as Job_18:13. ‫ר‬ ַ‫ב‬ ְ
signifies the relation of the matter, a matter of fact, as ‫י‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ , facts, Psa_65:4; Psa_105:27;
Psa_145:5. ‫ין‬ ִ‫ח‬ (compared by Ew. with ‫ין‬ ִ‫,ה‬ a measure) signifies grace, χάρις (as synon.
‫ד‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶ‫,)ח‬ here delicate regularity, and is made easy of pronunciation from ‫ן‬ְ‫נ‬ ִ‫,ח‬ just as the
more usual ‫ן‬ ֵ‫;ח‬ the language has avoided the form ‫ן‬ֶ‫נ‬ ֵ‫,ח‬ as observed above. ‫בוּשׁ‬ ְ‫ל‬. clothing,

36. we have translated “coat of mail,” which the Arab. libâs usually signifies; ‫ּו‬‫שׁ‬‫בוּ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ is not
its face's covering (Schlottm.), which ought to be ‫יו‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ ‫בוּשׁ‬ ְ‫;ל‬ but ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ is the upper or front
side turned to the observer (comp. Isa_25:7), as Arab. wjh, (wag'h), si rem desuper
spectes, summa ejus pars, si ex adverso, prima (Fleischer, Glossae, i. 57). That which is
the “doubled of its mouth” (‫ן‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶ‫,ר‬ prop. a bit in the mouth, then the mouth itself) is its
upper and lower jaws armed with powerful teeth. The “doors of the face” are the jaws;
the jaws are divided back to the ears, the teeth are not covered by lips; the impression of
the teeth is therefore the more terrible, which the substantival clause, Job_41:14 (comp.
Job_39:20), affirms. ‫יו‬ָ ִ‫שׁ‬ gen. subjecti: the circle, ᅝρκος, which is formed by its teeth
(Hahn).
BE SO , "Job 41:12. I will not conceal his parts — That is, I will particularly
speak of them. Hebrew, ‫,בדיו‬ bad-dav, his bars, or the members of his body, which
are strong like bars of iron. R. Levi interprets it of his strength; nor his power —
‫גבורות‬ ‫,ודבר‬ udebar geburoth, nec verbum fortitudinum, nor the word, or the matter,
of his fortitude; nor his comely proportion — Which is more remarkable and
admirable in a creature of such vast bulk: Hebrew, ‫ערכו‬ ‫,וחין‬ vechin gnercho, nor the
gracefulness of his disposition, that is, the disposition or adjustment of his parts.
COFFMA , ""His mighty strength ... etc." (Job 41:12). Driver, and other scholars,
have complained that the text here is corrupt;[15] but one thing is clear, the mighty
strength of the crocodile is stressed. Moreover, the crocodile of the Old Testament
was a full 18 feet in length,[16] contrasting with the American crocodile some four
feet shorter.
"Who can open the doors of his face? Round about his teeth is terror" (Job 41:14).
"`The doors of his face,' his lower and upper jaws. `Round his teeth is terror,' in the
upper jaw usually 36, in the lower jaw 20, long and terrible to look at."[17] Rowley,
however, wrote that, "The formidable teeth of the crocodile inspire terror; in the
upper jaw, there are thirty-six, and in the lower thirty"![18] This writer must
confess that he does not know which one of these scholars is correct regarding the
number of crocodile teeth in that lower jaw!
"His strong scales are his pride" (Job 41:15). "These plates are of exceeding
hardness, so hard, that they were employed as armour by ancient warriors, and one
may see a coat of natural scale armour in the British Museum."[19] "The skin
(scales) of the crocodile is actually so hard that a musket ball will not penetrate
it."[20]
COKE, "Job 41:12. I will not conceal his parts, &c.— I will not pass over in silence
his limbs, nor any thing of his bravery, nor the gracefulness of his proportion.
Heath. I will not on account of him hold silence, I will declare his fortitude, and the
strength of his nerves. Houb.

37. GUZIK 12-17, "a. I will not conceal his limbs, his mighty power, or his graceful
proportions: To strengthen the point made in the previous section (that Job cannot
stand against Leviathan, so he could not hope to stand against God), the LORD will
now describe in greater detail the might and glory of this creature.
b. Who can remove his outer coat . . . terrible teeth all around . . . rows of scales . . .
joined one to another: This description of Leviathan (especially with the rough,
armor-like scaly skin and terrible teeth all around) makes some people believe that
whatever Leviathan is in other Biblical and mythological contexts, here God had in
mind a mighty crocodile.
i. John Trapp on they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be
parted: “Let the saints strengthen themselves by close sticking the one to the other,
as the primitive Christians did; so that the very heathens acknowledged that no
people under heaven did so hold together and love one another as they.”
PULPIT, "I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
The further description is introduced by this formal announcement, which is
perhaps best rendered, I will not keep silence concerning his limbs' nor concerning
the matter of his might' or the comeliness of his proportion (see the Revised
Version); i.e. I will enter upon these points seriatim, and set them forth severally.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor[b]?
BAR ES, "Who can discern the face of his garment? - literally, “Who can
reveal the face, that is, the appearance, of his garment?” This “garment” is undoubtedly
his skin. The meaning seems to be, “His hard and rough skin is his defense, and no one
can so strip off that as to have access to him.” The word rendered “discover” (‫גלה‬ gâlâh)
means “to make naked”; then “to reveal”; and the idea is, that he cannot be made naked
of that covering, or deprived of it so that one could attack him.
Or who can come to him with his double bridle? - Margin, “within” Gesenius
renders this, “The doubling of his jaws;” that is. his double row of teeth. Umbreit, “His
double bit.” Noyes, “Who will approach his jaws?” So Rosenmuller. Schultens and Prof.
Lee, however, suppose it means that no one can come near to him and “double the bit”
upon him, “i. e.” cast the bit or noose over his nose, so as to secure him by doubling it, or

38. passing it around him. The former seems to me to be the true meaning. “Into the
doubling of his jaws, who can enter?” That is, Who will dare approach a double row of
teeth so formidable?” The word rendered “bridle” (‫רסן‬ resen) means properly a curb or
halter, which goes over a horse’s nose, and hence, a bit or bridle. But it may be used to
denote the interior of the mouth, the jaws, where the bit is placed, and then the phrase
denotes the double row of teeth of the animal. Thus, the description of the “parts of
defense” of the animal is kept up.
CLARKE, "Who can discover the face of his garment? - Who can rip up the
hide of this terrible monster? Who can take away his covering, in order to pierce his
vitals?
GILL,"Who can discover the face of his garment?.... Or rather uncover it? Not
the sea, which Mr. Broughton represents as the garment of the whale; who can strip him
of it, or take him out of that, and bring him to land? which, though not impossible, is
difficult: but either the garment of his face, the large bulk or prominence that hangs over
his eyes; or rather his skin. Who dare venture to take off his skin, or flay him alive? or
take off the scaly coat of the crocodile, which is like a coat of mail to him, and which he
never of himself casts off, as serpents do?
or who can come to him with his double bridle? either go within his jaws, which,
when opened, are like a double bridle; or go near and open his jaws, and put a curb
bridle into them, and lead, direct, and rule him at pleasure. This is not to be done either
to the whale or crocodile; yet the Tentyritae had a way of getting upon the back of the
crocodile; and by putting a stick across its mouth, as it opened it to bite them, and so
holding both the ends of it with the right and left hands, as with a bridle, brought them
to land, as Pliny (s) relates; and so the Nereides are represented as sitting on the backs of
whales by Theocritus (t).
JAMISO ,"discover — rather, “uncover the surface” of his garment (skin, Job_
10:11): strip off the hard outer coat with which the inner skin is covered.
with — rather, “within his double jaws”; literally, “bridle”; hence that into which the
bridle is put, the double row of teeth; but “bridle” is used to imply that none dare put his
hand in to insert a bridle where in other animals it is placed (Job_41:4; Job_39:10).
BE SO , "Job 41:13. Who can discover — ‫גלה‬ ‫,מי‬ mi gillah, Quis retexit, vel
nudavit, Who hath uncovered, or made naked, or hath taken off from him, the face
of his garment? — That is, his skin, which covers the whole body, and may be taken
off from it like a garment. Who dare attempt to touch even his outward skin? much
less dare any venture to endeavour to strip it off, or to give him a deep or deadly
wound. Who can come to him with his double bridle? — To put it into his mouth,
and lead him by it to thy stable and service, as he might do a horse? Or rather,
(because he plainly seems to persist in describing the several parts of the leviathan’s
body,) Who can come within his double bridle? or, as Heath translates it, his double
row of teeth? namely, his vast jaws, which have some resemblance to a double
bridle; whence the Greeks call those parts of the face which reach to the jaws on
both sides the bridle. The crocodile’s mouth is exceedingly wide: Pliny says,

39. strongly, “When he gapes, fit totum os, he becomes all mouth.”
COKE, "Job 41:13. Who can discover the face of his garment, &c.— Who can strip
off his outer robe? Who can come within his double row of teeth? Heath. See the
next verse. The crocodile's mouth is exceedingly wide. Pliny says, strongly, "When
he gapes, fit totum os, he becomes all mouth."
ELLICOTT, "(13) Who can discover . . . ?—Rather, Who can strip off his outer
garment? i.e., his scales, which are the covering of his skin. Who shall come within
his double bridle, i.e., the doubling of his jaw? Who would venture a limb within his
jaws? This seems to be the meaning, rather than “Who shall come to him with his
double bridle,” forsooth to take him therewith?
PULPIT, "Who can discover the face of his garment? Some critics understand this
in a general sense, "Who can lay him open to assault?" Others suggest a more
definite meaning," Who can strip off his outer covering?" the scaly coat, that is,
which forms his special defence, and expose the comparatively tender skin below? If
this were done, he would then be at the hunter's mercy; but who will undertake to
do it? Who, again, can come to him with his double bridle? Come, i.e; with a double
bridle in his hand, and place it in the monster's jaws. (So Schultens and Professor
Lee.) Others translate, "Who will come within [the range of] his double bridle? and
understand by "his double bridle" his two rows of teeth—Homer's ἑρκος ὀδόντων
(Rosenmuller, Canon Cook, Professor Stanley Leathes, etc.).
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
BAR ES, "Who can open the doors of his face? - His mouth. The same term is
sti 1 used to denote the mouth - from its resemblance to a door. The idea is, that no one
would dare to force open his mouth. This agrees better with the crocodile than almost
any other animal. It would not apply to the whale. The crocodile is armed with a more
formidable set of teeth than almost any other animal; see the description in the notes at
Job_41:1. Bochart says that it has sixty teeth, and those much larger than in proportion
to the size of the body. Some of them, he says, stand out; some of them are serrated, or
like a saw, fitting into each other when the mouth is closed; and some come together in
the manner of a comb, so that the grasp of the animal is very tenacious and fearful; see a

40. full description in Bochart.
CLARKE, "The doors of his face? - His jaws which are most tremendous.
GILL,"Who can open the doors of his face?.... Of his mouth, the jaws thereof,
which are like a pair of folding doors: the jaws of a crocodile have a prodigious opening.
Peter Martyr (u) speaks of one, whose jaws opened seven feet broad; and Leo Africanus
(w) affirms he saw some, whose jaws, when opened, would hold a whole cow. To the
wideness of the jaws of this creature Martial (x) alludes; and that the doors or jaws of the
mouth of the whale are of a vast extent will be easily believed by those who suppose that
was the fish which swallowed Jonah;
his teeth are terrible round about; this may seem to make against the whale, the
common whale having none; though the "ceti dentati" are a sort of whales that have
many teeth in the lower jaw, white, large, solid, and terrible (y). Olaus Magnus (z) speaks
of some that have jaws twelve or fourteen feet long; and teeth of six, eight, and twelve
feet; and there is a sort called "trumpo", having teeth resembling those of a mill (a). In
the spermaceti whale are rows of fine ivory teeth in each jaw, about five or six inches
long (b). But of the crocodile there is no doubt; which has two rows of teeth, very sharp
and terrible, and to the number of sixty (c).
JAMISO ,"doors of ... face — his mouth. His teeth are sixty in number, larger in
proportion than his body, some standing out, some serrated, fitting into each other like a
comb [Bochart].
BE SO , "Job 41:14. Who can open the doors of his face? — amely, his mouth. If
it be open, no one dares to enter within it, as he now said; and here he adds, none
dare open it. His teeth are terrible round about — This is true of some kinds of
whales, though others are said to have either none, or no terrible teeth; but it is
more eminently and unquestionably true of the crocodile, of which this very thing is
observed by all authors who write of it.
PULPIT, "Who can open the doors of his face? Who can make him open his huge,
gaping jaws, if he chooses to keep them shut? Who would dare to do so? His teeth
are terrible round about. The crocodile has "two rows of sharply pointed teeth,
thirty or more on each side". They are "so formed and disposed as to tear their prey
rather than masticate it". The voracity of the full-grown crocodile is great; and.he
will not scruple to attack and devour men, if they come in his way. The natives of
Upper Egypt have a wholesome terror of him.

41. 15 Its back has[c] rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
BAR ES, "
His scales are his pride - Margin, “strong pieces of shields.” The literal translation
of this would be, “Pride, the strong of shields;” that is, the strong shields. There can be
no doubt that there is reference to the scales of the animal, as having a resemblance to
strong shields laid close to each other. But there is considerable variety of opinion as to
its meaning. Umbreit and Prof. Lee take the word here rendered “pride” (‫גאוה‬ gê'voh) to
be the same as (‫גוה‬ gêvâh), “back,” and then the meaning would be that his back was
armed as with a shield - referring, as Prof. Lee supposes, to the dorsal fin of the whale.
But there is no necessity for this supposition, and it cannot be denied that it is somewhat
forced. The “connection” requires that we should understand it, not of the dorsal fin, but
of the scales; for a description immediately follows in continuation of this, which will by
no means apply to the fin. The obvious and proper meaning is, that the pride or glory of
the animal - that on which his safety depended, and which was the most remarkable
thing about him - was his “scales,” which were laid together like firm and compact
shields, so that nothing could penetrate them. This description accords better with the
crocodile than with any other animal. It is covered with scales, “which are so hard as to
resist a musket-ball.” “Ed. Ency.” The description cannot be applied to a whale, which
has no scales; and accordingly Prof. Lee supposes that the reference in this verse and the
two following is not to the “scales,” but to the “teeth,” and to “the setting in of the dorsal
fin!”
Shut up together - Made close or compact.
As with a close seal - As if they had been sealed with wax, so that no air could come
between them.
CLARKE, "His scales are his pride - They are impenetrable, as we have already
seen.
GILL,"His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. This is
notoriously true of the crocodile, whose back and tail are covered with scales, which are
in a measure impenetrable and invincible: which all writers concerning it, and travellers
that have seen it, agree in; See Gill on Eze_29:4; but the skin of the whale is smooth; the
outward skin is thin, like parchment, and is easily pulled off with the hand; and its under
skin, though an inch thick, is never stiff nor tough, but soft (d): though, if Nearchus (e)
is to be credited, he reports, that one was seen fifty cubits long, with a scaly skin all over
it a cubit thick; and such, it is said, were by a storm brought into our river Trent some
years ago, and cast ashore, which had scales upon their backs very hard, as large and
thick as one of our shillings (f). But Aben Ezra interprets this of the teeth of the

42. leviathan, and in which he is followed by Hasaeus; which are strong like a shield, as the
words used signify; so Mr. Broughton,
"the strong shields have pride:''
but then this is as applicable, or more so, to the scales of the crocodile; which are so
close as if they were sealed together, and are like a shield, its defence, and in which it
prides itself.
JAMISO ,"Rather, his “furrows of shields” (as “tubes,” “channels,” see on Job_
40:18), are, etc., that is, the rows of scales, like shields covering him: he has seventeen
such rows.
shut up — firmly closed together. A musket ball cannot penetrate him, save in the
eye, throat, and belly.
K&D 15-17, "Since the writer uses ‫יק‬ ִ‫פ‬ፎ both in the signif. robustus, Job_12:12, and
canalis, Job_40:18, it is doubtful whether it must be explained robusta (robora)
scutorum (as e.g., Ges.), or canales scutorum (Hirz., Schlottm., and others). We now
prefer the latter, but so that “furrows of the shields” signifies the square shields
themselves bounded by these channels; for only thus is the ‫גוּר‬ ָ‫,ס‬ which refers to these
shields, considered, each one for itself, suitably attached to what precedes. ‫ר‬ ָ‫צ‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫ּות‬‫ח‬ is an
acc. of closer definition belonging to it: closed is (each single one) by a firmly attached,
and therefore firmly closed, seal. lxx remarkably ᆢσπερ σµυρίτης λίθος, i.e., (emery (vid.,
Krause's Pyrogeteles, 1859, S. 228). Six rows of knotty scales and four scales of the neck
cover the upper part of the animal's body, in themselves firm, and attached to one
another in almost impenetrable layers, as is described in Job_41:7 in constantly-varying
forms of expression (where ‫שׁוּ‬ַ ִ‫י‬ with Pathach beside Athnach is the correct reading), - a
‫ה‬ָ‫ו‬ ֲ‫א‬ַ, i.e., an equipment of which the animal may be proud. Umbr. takes ‫,גאוה‬ with
Bochart, = ‫ה‬ָ‫ו‬ֵ, the back; but although in the language much is possible, yet not
everything.
BE SO , "Job 41:15-17. His scales are his pride — He prides and pleases himself
in his strong and mighty scales. Hebrew, ‫מגנים‬ ‫,אפיקי‬ aphikee maginnim, robusta
scutorum, the strength, or strong things, of his shields are his pride. Or, his body, or
his back, (as ‫,גאוה‬ gaavah, is rendered by many ancient and modern interpreters,) is
the strength of shields, that is, fortified with scales strong as shields. Heath
translates it, Strong scales cover his back. This is remarkably the case with the
crocodile, whose strength is in his back, which is covered with impenetrable scales,
whereas his belly is very soft, and easily pierced. If it be interpreted as meant of the
whale, we must understand by these shields the several coats of his skin, which,
though it be smooth and entire, and without scales, may nevertheless be said to be as
strong as shields, (shields being formerly made of leather,) because it is exceeding
hard and strong, and almost impenetrable, and that not only on his back, as in the

43. crocodile, but also in the belly all over. “The outward, or scarf-skin of the whale,”
indeed, “is no thicker than parchment; but this being removed, the real skin
appears, of about an inch thick, and covering the fat, or blubber, that lies beneath,
which is from eight to twelve inches in thickness. The muscles lie beneath this, and,
like the flesh of quadrupeds, are very red and tough.” — Ency. Brit. But as the skin
of the whale is all one entire piece, and does not consist of different parts joined
together, the following clause, and the contents of the next two verses, do not seem to
be properly applicable to it. Shut up together as with a close seal — That is, the
shields, or scales, are closely compacted together, as things that are fastened by a
seal. One is so near another, &c. — This plainly shows that the scales, or shields, are
several, which certainly agrees better to the crocodile than to the whale, unless there
be a sort of whales which have scales, as some have affirmed, but it is not yet known
or proved. By these shields, or scales, the animal is not only kept warm, for no air
can come between them, but kept safe, for no sword can pierce through those scales.
They stick together that they cannot be sundered — It is exceeding difficult, and
almost impossible, by any power or art, to sever them one from another.
PULPIT, "His scales are his pride; or, his pride is in the channeling of his scales
(literally, of his shields). The scales of the crocodile are arranged in five rows along
his entire back, with a depression between the rows which is like a "channel." Each
individual scale resembles a shield. They are shut up together as with a close seal;
each, i.e.' closely attached to its fellow,so that there is no space between them. "A
rifle-ball," according to Canon Tristram, "glances off from them as from a rock".
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
CLARKE, "One is so near to another - It has already been stated, that a musket-
ball fired at him in any direction cannot make a passage through his scales.
GILL,"One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. This
shows that it cannot be understood of the skin of the whale, and the hardness and
strength of that, which is alike and of a piece; whereas those scales, or be they what they
may, though closely joined, yet are distinct: those who interpret this of whales that have
teeth, and these of the teeth, observe, that as they have teeth to the number of forty or
fifty in the lower jaw, in the upper one fire holes or sockets into which they go; and they
are so very close that no wind or air can come between them (g).

44. 17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
BAR ES, "They are joined one to another - literally, “A man with his brother;”
that is, each one is connected with another. There is no natural fastening of one scale
with another, but they lie so close and compact that they seem thus to be fastened down
on one another; see Bochart on this verse. It is this which makes the crocodile so difficult
to be killed. A musket-ball will penetrate the skin under the belly, which is there less
firmly protected; and accordingly the efforts of those who attempt to secure them are
directed to that part of the body. A ball in the eye or throat will also destroy it, but the
body is impervious to a spear or a bullet.
GILL,"They are joined one to another,.... One scale to another, or "a man in his
brother" (h): which may seem to favour the notion of the whale's teeth in the sockets,
which exactly answer to one another; but the next clause will by no means agree with
them;
they stick together, that they cannot be sundered: whereas they easily be, at least
by the creature itself; but the scales of a crocodile are so closely joined and sealed
together, that there is no parting them.
PULPIT, "They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be
sundered; literally, they are soldered one to another (comp. Isaiah 41:7).
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.

45. BAR ES, "By his neesings a light doth shine - The word rendered “neesings”
means properly sneezing, and the literal sense here would be, “His sneezings, light
shines.” Coverdale renders it, “His nesinge is like a glisteringe fyre.” Bochart says that
the meaning is, “that when the crocodile sneezes, the breath is driven through the
nostrils with such force that it seems to scintillate, or emit fire.” Probably the meaning is,
that when the animal emits a sudden sound, like sneezing, the fire seems to flash from
the eye. There is some quick and rapid motion of the eyes, which in the rays of the sun
seem to flash fire. The sneezing of the crocodile is mentioned by Aristotle. Prof. Lee.
Amphibious animals, the longer they hold their breath under water, respire so much the
more violently when they emerge, and the breath is expelled suddenly and with violence.
Schultens. This is the action here referred to - the strong effort of the animal to recover
breath when he rises to the surface, and when in the effort the eyes seem to scintillate, or
emit light.
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning - The “eyelids of the morning”
is a beautiful poetic phrase quite common in Hebrew poetry. The eyes of the crocodile
are small, but they are remarkable. When he lifts his head above water, his staring eyes
are the first things that strike the beholder, and may then with great beauty be compared
with the morning light. There is a remarkable coincidence here, in the fact that when the
Egyptians would represent the morning by a hieroglyphic, they painted a crocodile’s eye.
The reason assigned for this was, that before the whole body of the animal appeared, the
eyes seemed to rise from the deep; see Bochart on the passage, “Hierez.,” and also
Herapollo, “Hieroglyph.” i. c. 65.
CLARKE, "By his neesings a light doth shine - It is very likely that this may be
taken literally. When he spurts up the water out of his nostrils, the drops form a sort of
iris or rainbow. We have seen this effect produced when, in certain situations and state
of the atmosphere, water was thrown up forcibly, so as to be broken into small drops,
which has occasioned an appearance like the rainbow.
The eyelids of the morning - It is said that, under the water, the eyes of the
crocodile are exceedingly dull; but when he lifts his head above water they sparkle with
the greatest vivacity. Hence the Egyptians, in their hieroglyphics, made the eyes of the
crocodile the emblem of the morning. Ανατολην λεγοντες δυο οφθαλµους κροκοδειλου
ζωογραφουσι. - Horapp. Egypt. Ieroglyph., lib. i., c. 65. This is a most remarkable
circumstance, casts light on ancient history, and shows the rigid correctness of the
picture drawn above. The same figure is employed by the Greek poets.
Χρυσεας ᅧµερας βλεφαρον.
“The eyelid of the golden day.”
Soph. Antig. ver. 103.
Νυκτος αφεγγες βλεφαρον.
“The darksome eyelid of the night.”
Eurip. Phaeniss. ver. 553.

46. GILL,"By his neesings a light doth shine,.... The philosopher (i) observes, that
those who look to the sun are more apt to sneeze: and it is taken notice of by various
writers (k), that the crocodile delights to be sunning itself, and lying yawning in the sun
and looking at it, as quoted by Bochart; and so frequently sneeze: which sneezings,
through the rays of the sun, may seem to shine and give light. Though as, in sneezing,
water is thrown out through the nostrils, it may be observed of the whale, that it has
mouths or holes in its front, through which, as through pipes, it throws out showers and
floods of water, as Pliny (l) relates; which, by means of the rays of the sun, as in a
rainbow, appear bright and glittering;
and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning: the break and dawn of day; a
very beautiful expression, the same we call "peep of day": Pindar (m) has "the eye of the
evening"; break of day, as Ben Gersom says, is about an hour and the fifth part of an
hour before the sunrising. The eyes of the crocodile were, with the Egyptians, an
hieroglyphic of the morning (n): wherefore this seems better to agree with the crocodile
than the whale, whose eyes are not much bigger than those of a bullock; and has eyelids
and hair like men's eyes; the crystal of the eye is not much bigger than a pea (o); its eyes
are placed very low, almost at the end of the upper lip, and when without its guide,
dashes itself against rocks and shoals (p). Though that sort of whales called "orcae" are
said to have eyes a foot long, and of a red rosy colour, such as the morning is described
by (q); and a northern writer (r) tells us that some whales have eyes, whose
circumference will admit fifteen or twenty men to sit therein; and in others it exceeds
eight or ten cubits; and that the pupil is a cubit, and of a red and flaming colour; which,
at a distance, in dark seasons, among the waves, appears to fishermen as fire kindled.
And Thevenot (s) says of crocodiles, that their eyes are indifferently big, and very
darkish.
JAMISO ,"Translate: “his sneezing, causeth a light to shine.” Amphibious animals,
emerging after having long held their breath under water, respire by violently expelling
the breath like one sneezing: in the effort the eyes which are usually directed towards the
sun, seem to flash fire; or it is the expelled breath that, in the sun, seems to emit light.
eyelids of morning — The Egyptian hieroglyphics paint the eyes of the crocodile as
the symbol for morning, because the eyes appear the first thing, before the whole body
emerges from the deep [Horae Hierogliphicae 1.65. Bochart].
K&D 18-21, "That the crocodile delights to sun itself on the land, and then turns its
open jaws to the sunny side, most Nile travellers since Herodotus have had an
opportunity of observing;
(Note: Dieterici, Reisebilder, i. 194: “We very often saw the animal lying in the
sand, its jaws wide open and turned towards the warm sunbeams, while little birds,
like the slender white water-wagtail, march quietly about in the deadly abyss, and
pick out worms from the watery jaws.” Herodotus, ii. 68, tells exactly the same story;
as the special friend of the crocodile among little birds, he mentions τᆵν τροχሏλον (the
sand-piper, Pluvianus Aegyptius).)
and in connection therewith the reflex action of sneezing may occur, since the light of
the sun produces an irritation on the retina, and thence on the vagus; and since the sun
shines upon the fine particles of watery slime cast forth in the act of sneezing, a meteoric
appearance may be produced. This delicate observation of nature is here compressed

47. into three words; in this concentration of whole, grand thoughts and pictures, we
recognise the older poet. ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ט‬ ָ‫ע‬ is the usual Semitic word for “sneezing” (Synon. ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּר‬‫ז‬ 2Ki_
4:35). ‫ל‬ ֶ‫ה‬ ָ shortened from ‫ל‬ ֵ‫ה‬ ָ , Job_31:26, Hiph. of ‫ל‬ ַ‫ל‬ ָ‫.ה‬ The comparison of the
crocodile's eyes with ‫ר‬ ַ‫ֽח‬ ָ‫י־שׁ‬ ֵ ַ‫ע‬ ְ‫פ‬ ַ‫ע‬ (as Job_3:9, from ‫ף‬ ֵ‫ע‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫,ע‬ to move with quick vibrations, to
wink, i.e., tremble), or the rendering of the same as εᅼδος ᅛωσφόρου (lxx), is the more
remarkable, as, according to Horus, i. 68, two crocodile's eyes are the hieroglyph
(Note: The eyes of the crocodile alone by themselves are no hieroglyph: how could
they have been represented by themselves as crocodile's eyes? But in the Ramesseum
and elsewhere the crocodile appears with a head pointing upwards in company with
couching lions, and the eyes of the crocodile are rendered specially prominent. Near
this group it appears again in a curved position, and quite small, but this time in
company with a scorpion which bears a disc of the sun. The former (κροκοδείλου δύο
ᆆφθαλµοί) seems to me to be a figure of the longest night, the latter (κροκόδειλος
κεκυφώς in Horapollo) of the shortest, so that consequently ᅊνατολή and δύσις do not
refer to the rising and setting of the sun, but to the night as prevailing against or
succumbing to the day (communicated by Lauth from his researches on the
astronomical monuments). But since the growth of the day begins with the longest
night, and vice versâ, the notions ᅊνατολή and δύσις can, as it seems to me, retain
their most natural signification; and the crocodile's eyes are, notwithstanding, a
figure of the light shining forth from the darkness, as the crocodile's tail signifies
black darkness (and Egypt as the black land).)
for dawn, ᅊνατολή: ᅚπειδ́περ (probably to be read ᅚπειδᆱ πρᆵ) παντᆵς σώµατος ζώου οᅷ
ᆆφθαλµοᆳ ᅚκ τοሞ βυθοሞ ᅊναφαίνονται. There it is the peculiar brilliancy of the eyes of
certain animals that is intended, which is occasioned either by the iris being furnished
with a so-called lustrous substance, or there being in the pupil of the eye (as e.g., in the
ostrich) that spot which, shining like metal, is called tapetum lucidum. For ᅊναφαίνεσθαι
of the eyes ᅚκ τοሞ βυθοሞ, is the lustre of the pupil in the depth of the eye. The eyes of the
crocodile, which are near together, and slanting, glimmer through the water, when it is
only a few feet under water, with a red glow.
Nevertheless the comparison in Job_41:18 might also be intended differently. The
inner (third) eyelid
(Note: Prof. Will refers the figure not to the third eyelid or the membrana
nictitans, but to that spot on the choroidea, glistening with a metallic lustre, which
the crocodile has in common with most animals of the night or the twilight, therefore
to the brilliancy of its eye, which shines by virtue of its lustrous coating; vid., the
magnificent head of a crocodile in Schlegel's Amphibien-Abbildungen (1837-44).)
of the crocodile is itself a rose red; and therefore, considered in themselves, its eyes may
also be compared with the “eyelids of the dawn.” What is then said, Job_41:19, of the
crocodile, Achilles Tatius, iv. 2, says of the hippopotamus: µυκτᆱρ ᅚπᆳ µέγα κεχᇽνᆹς καᆳ
πνέων πυρώδη καπνᆵν ᆞς ᅊπᆵ πηγᇿς πυρός. Bartram has observed on the alligator, that as it
comes on the land a thick smoke issues from its distended nostrils with a thundering
sound. This thick, hot steam, according to the credible description which is presented
here, produces the impression of a fire existing beneath, and bursting forth. The

48. subjective truth of this impression is faithfully but poetically reproduced by the poet. On
‫ּוד‬‫ד‬‫י‬ ִⅴ (root ‫,כד‬ escudere). ‫ט‬ ֵ ַ‫מ‬ ְ‫ת‬ ִ‫ה‬ signifies no more than to disentangle one's self, here
therefore: to fly out in small particles. ‫ּון‬‫מ‬ְ‫ג‬ፍ, Job_41:19, is rendered by Saad., Gecat., and
others, by qumqum (‫,)קומקום‬ a caldron; the modern expositors derive it from ‫אגם‬ =
agama, to glow, and understand it of a “heated caldron.” But the word signifies either
heat or caldron; the latter signification, however, cannot be linguistically established;
one would look for ‫ן‬ָፍ (Arab. iggâne, a copper Germ. Waschkessel). The noun ‫ּון‬‫מ‬ְ‫ג‬ፍ
signifies, Job_40:2, the reed σχοሏνος, and in the Jerusalem Talmud, Sota ix. 12, some
menial service (comp. Arab. ugum); Ew. rightly retains the former signification, like a pot
blown upon, i.e., fired, heated, and beside it (in combination with it) reeds as fuel, which
in themselves, and especially together with the steaming water, produce a thick smoke.
The Waw is to be compared to the Arabic Waw concomitantiae (which governs the
acc.).
BE SO , "Job 41:18. By his neesings a light doth shine — Literally, His sneezing
causes the light to sparkle. If he sneeze, or spout up water, it is like a light shining,
either with the froth, or the light of the sun shining through it. The crocodile, in
particular, is said frequently to sneeze. His eyes are like the eyelids of the morning
— The eyes of the whale are said in the night-time to shine like a flame; and the eyes
of the crocodile, although they are dull and dark under the water, yet, as soon as
they appear above water, cast a bright and clear light, like that of the morning
suddenly breaking forth after the dark night. “I think,” says Dr. Young, “this gives
us as great an image of the thing it would express as can enter the thoughts of man.
It is not improbable that the Egyptians stole their hieroglyphic for the morning,
which is the crocodile’s eye, from this passage, though no commentator I have seen
mentions it. It is easy to conceive how the Egyptians should be both readers and
admirers of the writings of Moses, whom I suppose the author of this poem.” The
doctor paraphrases this clause thus:
“Large is his front; and when his burnish’d eyes
Lift their broad lids, the morning seems to rise.”
COFFMA , ""His sneezings flash forth light" (Job 41:18). "The spray breathed
through the nostrils of the crocodile is luminous in the sunshine. His eyes are
compared to the dawn, because they are visible from some distance under
water."[21] "When the crocodile comes up after being submerged in the water, he
blows spray into the sunlight with an effect like fireworks. That impression is
enhanced by the fact that his eyes shine like coals of fire through the water."[22] As
Kelly said, "All of this may be understood as an imaginative and exaggerated
description of a crocodile, or as poetic imagery."[23]
"Out of his nostrils a smoke goeth" (Job 41:20). This is a reference to that spray
which the monster snorts out of his nostrils following a period of being submerged

49. in the water. "It is compared here to the steam that comes off a pot boiling with a
fire made of rushes under it."[24]
"Terror dances before him" (Job 41:22). "This is a graphic description of the
terrified movements of other creatures when the crocodile appears."[25]
"The flakes of his flesh are joined together" (Job 41:23). "These (literally the
pendulous parts) under the neck and body, which in most animals are soft, are in
the crocodile firm and hard, forming a horny, waterproof covering for the
epidermis."[26]
COKE, "Job 41:18. By his neesings a light doth shine— Literally, His sneezings
cause the light to sparkle. The next clause gives as great an image of the thing it
would express, says Dr. Young, as can enter the thought of man. His eyes are like
the eyelids of the morning. The eyes of the crocodile were used as a hieroglyphick by
the ancient Egyptians, to denote the rising of the sun; because, says Horapollo, when
it emerges from the river, its eyes are the first part of the body which becomes
visible.
GUZIK 18=21, "a. His sneezing flash forth light . . . out his mouth go burning lights;
sparks of fire shoot out: This description of Leviathan seems definitely beyond that
of a crocodile, and leads other commentators to believe that God had in mind much
more than a currently known species.
b. Smoke goes out of his nostrils . . . a flame goes out of his mouth: This description
of Leviathan seems much more like what we would think of as a dragon. Curiously,
the dragon motif is common across cultures and lands, and may point to the actual
existence of some creature of this type in pre-history. It may be to this common
memory of this fire-breathing, reptilian creature that God refers.
i. “Those who regard these creatures as literal animals must admit that the
description given here in Job is an exaggeration of the appearance and power of
hippopotamuses and crocodiles.” (Smick)
PULPIT, "By his neesings a light doth shine. " eesings" is old English for
"sneezings." According to Aristotle, the crocodile is in the habit of sneezing, but I do
not find this fact noted by modern writers Boehart asserts it very positively, but he
does not profess to speak from his own knowledge. And his eyes are like the eyelids
of the morning. This probably does not mean more than that his eyes flash with
light upon occasion, which is no doubt true, though the eyes, being small, have not
generally attracted very much attention.

50. 19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
BAR ES, "Out of his mouth go burning lamps - The word “lamps” here is
probably used to denote torches, or fire-brands. The animal is here described as in
pursuit of his prey on land; and the description is exceedingly graphic and powerful. His
mouth is then open; his jaws are distended; his breath is thrown out with great violence;
his blood is inflamed, and the animal seems to vomit forth flames. The description is of
course to be regarded as figurative. It is such as one would be likely to give who should
see a fierce animal pressing on in pursuit of its prey.
And sparks of fire leap out - There is an appearance like sparks of fire. The
animal, with an open throat highly inflamed, seems to breathe forth flames. The figure is
a common one applied to a war-horse. Thus, Ovid:
“From their full racks the generous steeds retire,
Dropping ambrosial foam and snorting fire.”
Dr. Good
The same thing is remarked by Achilles Tatius, of the hippopotamus, “With open
nostrils, and breathing smoke like fire (πυρώδη καπνόν purōdē kapnon) as from a
fountain of fire.” And in Eustathius it is said, “They have an open nostril, breathing forth
smoke like fire from a furnace “ - πυρώδη καπνόν, ᆝς ᅚκ καµίνου πνέοντα purōdē kapnon,
hōs ek kaminou pneonta. See Bochart.
CLARKE, "Out of his mouth go burning lamps - Dr. Young, in his paraphrase,
has a sensible note on this passage: - “This is nearer the truth than at first view may be
imagined. The crocodile, according to naturalists, lying long under water, and being
there forced to hold its breath, when it emerges, the breath long repressed is hot, and
bursts out so violently, that it resembles fire and smoke. The horse does not repress his
breath by any means so long, neither is he so fierce and animated; yet the most correct of
poets ventures to use the same metaphor concerning him, volvit sub naribus ignem. By
this I would caution against a false opinion of the boldness of Eastern metaphors, from
passages ill understood.”
GILL,"Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
Which, though hyperbolical expressions, have some foundation for them in the latter; in
the vast quantities of water thrown out by the whale, through its mouth or hole in its
frontispiece, which in the sun may look like lamps and sparks of fire, as before observed;

51. and especially in the "orcae", or whales with teeth, which eject in the same way an oily
mucus, or the fat liquor of the brain, commonly called spermaceti, which may appear
more bright and glittering. Ovid (t) says much the same of the boar as is here said of the
leviathan.
JAMISO ,"burning lamps — “torches”; namely, in respiring (Job_41:18), seem to
go out.
BE SO , "Job 41:19-21. Out of his mouth go burning lamps — “This,” says Dr.
Young, “is nearer truth than at first view may be imagined. The crocodile, says the
naturalists, lying long under water, and being there forced to hold its breath, when
it emerges, the breath, long repressed, is hot, and bursts out so violently that it
resembles fire and smoke. The horse suppresses not his breath, by any means, so
long, neither is he so fierce and animated; yet the most correct of poets venture to
use the same metaphor concerning him. By this I would caution against a false
opinion of the eastern boldness, (the boldness of their metaphors,) from passages in
them ill understood.” We add the doctor’s paraphrase on these verses:
“His bulk is charged with such a furious soul,
That clouds of smoke from his spread nostrils roll,
As from a furnace; and, when roused his ire,
Fate issues from his jaws in streams of fire.”
Smoke, as out of a caldron — Hebrew, ‫,אגמן‬ agmon, sometimes rendered bulrush,
and, Job 41:2, put for a hook; but the word likewise signifies a pool, or stagnating
water, and is here rendered a caldron, because a caldron sends forth a great smoke,
as a pool doth vapours. By a like figure, the great brazen laver, in the temple, was
called a sea, on account of the great quantity of water which it contained. His breath
kindleth coals — A hyperbolical expression, signifying only extraordinary heat.
COKE, "Job 41:19-21. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, &c.— This is nearer the
truth, says Dr. Young, than at first view may be imagined. The crocodile, according
to the naturalists, lying long under water, and being there forced to hold its breath;
when it emerges, the breath, long repressed, is hot, and bursts out so violently, that
it resembles fire and smoke. The horse suppresseth not his breath by any means so
long; neither is he so fierce and animated, yet the most correct of poets ventures to
use the same metaphor concerning him. By this I would caution against a false
opinion of the boldness of the eastern metaphors from passages ill understood.
PULPIT, "Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. The

52. description now becomes highly poetical, and it would be a mistake to endeavour to
substantiate it. The intention is to represent the impression which the animal would
make on an impressible but unscientific observer viewing it in its native haunts for
the first time. Splashing, snorting, and throwing up spray all around, it would seem
to be breathing out steam and smoke, from which the idea of fire is inseparable (see
the next verse).
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
BAR ES, "Out of his nostrils goeth smoke - See the quotations on Job_41:19.
This appearance of the crocodile, or alligator, has been often noticed. Bertram, in his
“Travels in North and South Carolina,” p. 116, says, “While I was seeking a place of rest, I
encountered an alligator that in the neighboring lake rushed through the canes that grew
on its banks. He inflated his enormous body, and swung his tail high in the air. A thick
smoke streamed from his wide-open nostrils, with a sound that made the earth tremble.”
Rosenmuller, “Alte u. neue Morgenland,” No. 778.
As out of a seething-pot - A pot that is boiling. Literally, “a blown pot;” that is, a
pot under which the fire is blown, or kindled.
Or caldron - Any kettle. The same word is used to denote a reed or bulrush, or a rope
made of reeds, Isa_9:14; Job_41:1.
GILL,"Out of his nostrils goeth forth smoke, as out of a seething pot or
caldron. In which flesh or anything else is boiling. It is observed that there is a likeness
between the crocodile and the river horse, and particularly in their breathing (u): and of
the former it is remarked (w), that its nostrils are very large and open, and that they
breathe out a fiery smoke, as out of a furnace.
JAMISO ,"seething — boiling: literally, “blown under,” under which a fire is
blown.
ELLICOTT, "(20) Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or
caldron.—The last word is uncertain: it is the same as was rendered in the
Authorised Version “hook” at Job 41:2; and taking the same sense here, we may
render, as of a seething pot and rushes: i.e., a pot made hot with rushes.

53. 21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.
BAR ES, "His breath kindleth coals - It seems to be a flame, and to set on fire all
around it. So Hesiod, “Theog.” i. 319, describing the creation of the Chimera, speaks of it
as
πνέουσαν ᅊµαισάκετον πሞρ
pneousan amaimaketon pur.
“Breathing unquenchable fire,” So Virgil, “Georg.” ii. 140:
Haec loca non tauri spirantes naribus ignem Invertere.
“Bulls breathing fire these furrows ne’er have known.”
Warton
A similar phrase is found in a sublime description of the anger of the Almighty, in
Psa_18:8 :
There went up a smoke out of his nostrils,
And fire out of his mouth devoured:
Coals were kindled by it.
GILL,"His breath kindles coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
Hyperbolical expressions, which the above observations may seem to justify.
JAMISO ,"kindleth coals — poetical imagery (Psa_18:8).
PULPIT, "His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. All the
representations of dragons breathing smoke and flames, found in the myths and
sagas of so many countries, probably rest upon the observed fact of ,team or spray
streaming forth from the mouth and widely opened nostrils of the crocodile. The
steam has seemed to be smoke, and smoke has naturally suggested flame and fire.

54. 22 Strength resides in its neck;
dismay goes before it.
BAR ES, "In his neck remaineth strength - That is, strength is “permanently
residing” there. It is not assumed for the moment, but his neck is so constructed as to be
the abode of strength. The word here rendered “remaineth” (‫ילין‬ yālıyn), means properly
to pass the night; then to abide or dwell; and there is a designed contrast here with what
is said of “sorrow” in this verse. This description of strength residing in the neck, agrees
well with the crocodile; see the figure of the animal on p. 255. It is not easy, however, to
see how this is applicable to the whale, as Prof. Lee supposes. The whale is endowed,
indeed, with great strength, as Prof. Lee has shown, but that strength is manifested
mainly by the stroke of the tail.
And sorrow is turned into joy before him - Margin, “rejoiceth.” The proper
meaning of the word used here (‫תדוץ‬ tādûts) is “to dance, to leap, to skip;” and the sense
is, that “terror dances before him.” It does not refer to the motion of the animal, as if he
were brisk and rapid. but it is a poetic expression, as if terror played or pranced along
wherever he came. Strength “resided” in his neck, but his approach made terror and
alarm play before him wherever he went; that is, produced terror and dread. In his neck
is permanent, calm strength; before him, everything trembles and is agitated. The beauty
of the passage lies in this contrast between the strength and firmness which repose
calmly in the neck of the animal, and the consternation which he everywhere produces,
causing all to tremble as he approaches. Bochart has well illustrated this from the
Classical writers.
CLARKE, "In his neck remaineth strength - Literally, “strength has its dwelling
in his neck.” The neck is the seat of strength of most animals; but the head and shoulders
must be here meant, as the crocodile has no neck, being shaped nearly like a lizard.
And sorrow is turned into joy before him - ‫דאבה‬ ‫תדוץ‬ ‫ולפניו‬ ulephanaiv taduts
deabah; “And destruction exulteth before him.” This is as fine an image as can well be
conceived. It is in the true spirit of poetry, the legitimate offspring of the genie createur.
Our translation is simply insignificant.
GILL,"In his neck remaineth strength,.... This is thought to be an argument
against the whale, which is said to have no neck: but whatever joins the head and body
may be called the neck, though ever so small; and the shorter the neck is, the stronger it
is. It is also said by some, that the crocodile has no neck also; but the philosopher (x) is
express for it, that it has one and moves it: and Pliny (y) speaks of it as turning its head
upwards, which it could not do without a neck;

55. and sorrow is turned into joy before him; or leaps and dances before him; it
departs from him: he is not afraid of anything, though ever so threatening. Or sorrow
and distress at the sight of him, in men and fishes, make them leap, and hasten to get out
of the way of him and escape him.
JAMISO ,"remaineth — abideth permanently. His chief strength is in the neck.
sorrow — anxiety or dismay personified.
is turned into joy — rather, “danceth,” “exulteth”; wherever he goes, he spreads
terror “before him.”
K&D 22-25, "Overpowering strength lodges on its neck, i.e., has its abiding place
there, and before it despair, prop. melting away, dissolution (‫ה‬ ָ‫ב‬ፎ ְ from ‫ב‬ፍ ָ , Arab. ᏽ'b =
‫וּב‬ Hiph., Arab. ᏻ'b II, to bring into a loose condition, synon. ‫ס‬ ֵ‫מ‬ ֵ‫,)ח‬ dances hence, i.e.,
spring up and away (‫דוּץ‬ָ‫,י‬ Arab. jadisu, to run away), i.e., it spreads before it a
despondency which produces terror, and deprives of strength. Even the pendulous fleshy
parts (‫י‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ְ ַ‫,)מ‬ especially of its belly, hang close together, ‫קוּ‬ ֵ‫ב‬ ָ‫,ד‬ i.e., they are not flabby, but
fit to it, like a metal casting, without moving, for the skin is very thick and covered with
thick scales; and because the digestive apparatus of the animal occupies but little space,
and the scales of the back are continued towards the belly, the tender parts appear
smaller, narrower, and closer together than in other animals. ‫צוּק‬ָ‫י‬ here is not, as Job_
27:2; Job_29:6, the fut. of ‫,צוּק‬ but the part. of ‫ק‬ ַ‫צ‬ָ‫,י‬ as also Job_41:24: its heart is firm
and obdurate, as though it were of cast brass, hard as stone, and in fact as the nether
millstone (‫ח‬ ַ‫ל‬ ֶ‫פ‬ from ‫,פלח‬ falacha, to split, crush in pieces), which, because it has to bear
the weight and friction of the upper, must be particularly hard. It is not intended of
actual stone-like hardness, but only of its indomitable spirit and great tenacity of life: the
activity of its heart is not so easily disturbed, and even fatal wounds do not so quickly
bring it to a stand. ‫ּו‬‫מ‬ ֵ ִ‫מ‬ from ‫ת‬ ֵ‫שׂ‬ = ‫את‬ ֵ‫שׂ‬ = ‫ת‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫,)שׂ‬ primary form ְ‫א‬ ִ‫,שׂ‬ is better understood in
the active sense: afraid of its rising, than the passive: of its exaltedness. ‫ים‬ ִ‫יל‬ ֵ‫א‬ (according
to another reading ‫ים‬ ִ‫ל‬ ֵ‫)א‬ is not, with Ew., to be derived from ‫ל‬ִ‫י‬ፍ (Arab. ıjal), a ram; but
‫ים‬ ִ‫יל‬ ֵ‫א‬ Exo_15:15; Eze_17:13 (comp. ‫ים‬ ִ‫יר‬ֵ 2Ch_2:16, ‫י‬ ִ‫יר‬ֵ‫נ‬ 2Sa_22:29), ‫ים‬ ִ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ Eze_31:11; Eze_
32:21, and ‫ים‬ ִ‫אוּל‬ Cheth. 2Ki_24:15, are only alternating forms and modes of writing of
the participial adject., derived from ‫אוּל‬ (‫יל‬ ִ‫)א‬ first of all in the primary form awil (as ‫ר‬ֵ =
gawir). The signif. assigned to the verb ‫:אול‬ to be thick = fleshy, which is said then to go
over into the signif. to be stupid and strong (Ges. Handwörterb.), rests upon a
misconception: âla is said of fluids “to become thick,” because they are condensed, since
they go back, i.e., sink in or settle (Ges. correctly in Thes.: notio crassitiei a
retrocendendo). The verb âla, ja'ûlu, unites in itself the significations to go backward, to
be forward, and to rule; the last two: anteriorem and superiorem esse, probably belong
together, and ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ signifies, therefore, a possessor of power, who is before and over others.
‫א‬ ֵ ַ‫ח‬ ְ‫ת‬ ִ‫,ה‬ Job_41:25, has the signif., which does not otherwise occur, to miss the mark

56. (from ‫,חטא‬ Arab. chaᑛiya, to miss, opp. Arab. ᑑâb, to hit the mark), viz., (which is most
natural where ‫אילים‬ is the subject spoken of) since they had designed the slaughter and
capture of the monster. ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ is intended subjectively, as ‫א‬ ָ‫יר‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ = ‫ד‬ ַ‫ח‬ ַ Exo_15:16, Targ. II,
and also as the Arab. thubûr, employed more in reference to the mind, can be used of
pain.
BE SO , "Job 41:22-24. In his neck remaineth strength, &c. — Houbigant’s
translation of this is excellent; Strength has its dwelling (so ‫עז‬ ‫,ילין‬ jalin gnoz,
literally signifies) on his neck — His head and body are firmly joined together, and
therefore what may be called his neck is exceeding strong. This is equally applicable
to the whale and the crocodile, neither of which has any more neck than other fishes
have. And sorrow is turned into joy before him — The approach of any enemy,
which usually causeth fear and sorrow in others, fills him with joy, as being desirous
of nothing more than fighting. Or, as the Hebrew may be rendered, sorrow rejoices,
or dances, or triumphs, &c., that is, is prevalent and victorious; and quickly invades
and conquers all those men, or other creatures, which are in his way. Sorrow is his
companion, or harbinger, which attends upon him wheresoever he goes. So anger
and fear are said by the poets to accompany the god of war into the battle.
Houbigant translates the clause, Before him marches destruction; he makes terrible
work wherever he comes. The flakes of his flesh are joined together — Or, the parts
of his flesh which stick out, or hang loose, and are ready to fall from other fishes, or
creatures. The word flesh is sometimes used of fishes also, as Leviticus 11:11 ; 1
Corinthians 15:39. They cannot be moved — Without difficulty, namely, out of their
place, or from the other members of the body. His heart is as hard as a stone — His
courage is invincible; he is void of fear for himself, and of compassion for others,
which is often termed, hardness of heart. As hard as a piece of the nether millstone
— Which being to bear the weight of the upper, ought to be the harder and stronger
of the two. On these last three verses also, Dr. Young’s paraphrase is worthy of the
reader’s attention:
“Strength on his ample shoulder sits in state;
His well-join’d limbs are dreadfully complete;
His flakes of solid flesh are slow to part;
As steel his nerves, as adamant his heart.”
COKE, "Job 41:22. In his neck remaineth strength, &c.— Houbigant renders this
admirably; Strength has its dwelling on his neck; before him marches destruction.
See his note.

57. ELLICOTT, "(22) Sorrow is turned into joy before him.—Literally, and before him
danceth fear, or pining sorrow exulteth before him. A marvellous personification of
the terror which goes with him wherever he goes.
GUZIK 22-34, "a. Strength dwells in his neck, and sorrow dances before him: In
this last extended description of Leviathan, God spoke in terms that more closely
connected the concept of Leviathan with Satan. It could be said of Satan as well as
Leviathan (if not more so of Satan):
They are strong (Strength dwells in his neck)
They are cruel and entertained by sorrow (sorrow dances before him)
They strongly defended (the folds of his flesh are joined together; they are firm on
him and cannot be moved)
They are unsympathetic and hard of heart (His heart is as hard as stone)
They cause the mighty to fear (When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid)
They cannot be successfully attacked (Though the sword reaches him, it cannot
avail . . . he laughs at the threat of javelins)
They have few vulnerable spots (His undersides are like sharp potsherds)
They have no worthy adversaries on earth (On earth there is nothing like him)
They are filled with pride (He is king over all the children of pride)
i. This also means that the description of Behemoth in the previous chapter may also
be a representation of the strength and seeming confidence that the apparently
unassailable Adversary has. “The use of the two names Behemoth and Leviathan is
a poetic repetition, just as Psalms 74:1-23 refers to the breaking of the heads of the
monster (tanninim) and the heads of Leviathan.” (Smick)
ii. “While it is true that Satan is never named outside the Prologue, this does not
mean that the Lord never deals with him. He deals with him here in the form of
Leviathan, describing him to Job with the same sort of symbolic picture-language
He uses in Revelation.” (Mason)
b. He is king over all the children of pride: This description of Leviathan –
especially at this point – is so like that of Satan, that we may fairly suppose that God
here was indicating to Job not only His great might and Job’s vulnerability before
Satan, but also alluding to Satan’s role in Job’s great crisis.
i. God called Job to consider these unconquerable beasts, who each in their own way

58. were examples of Satan and his power. In this God allowed Job to consider the fact
that he could not stand before the power of Satan without God empowering him.
Job thought that he was all alone through his ordeal; indeed he felt he was alone.
Yet this was God’s way of saying that he was not alone, because if he were then he
surely would have crumbled before the power of Leviathan and Behemoth.
ii. “Jonah was swallowed by a whale; but the believer in Jesus Christ swallows the
whale. We eat Leviathan for breakfast. It takes a very big God, and a very big faith
in God, to be able to absorb so much evil. Leviathan seems to endlessly sprawling,
gargantuan, invincible. But the essence of the gospel is that the love of God is
greater than any evil.” (Mason)
iii. God ends His words to Job without ever telling him the story behind the story.
Job was left ignorant about the contest between God and Satan that prompted his
whole crisis (though perhaps God later told him). Though Job did not know the
whole story, God did tell him of His great victory over Leviathan/Satan, giving Job
assurance for the past, the present, and for the future.
iv. It was important that God did not tell Job the reasons why; then Job can be a
continuing comfort and inspiration and example to those who suffer with an
explanation. “Once again we emphasize that if the specific and ultimate reason for
his suffering had been revealed to Job – even at this point – the value of the account
as a comfort to others who must suffer in ignorance would have been diminished if
not cancelled.” (Smick)
PULPIT, "In his neck remaineth strength. It has been well remarked that the whale
has no neck, or at any rate none that is visible, while the crocodile has one that is of
great strength, and that naturally attracts observation. "Le cou assez marque," says
the 'Dictionnaire des Sciences' (l.s.c.). It is nearly of the same diameter with the head
at the point of junction, and where it adjoins the body is still larger. And sorrow is
turned into joy before him; rather, and terror danceth before him (see the Revised
Version). Whithersoever he proceeds, he causes terror; people tremble, take to
flight, and disappear.
23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
they are firm and immovable.

59. BAR ES, "The flakes of his flesh are joined together - Margin, “fallings.” The
Hebrew word used here means anything “falling,” or “pendulous,” and the reference
here is, probably, to the pendulous parts of the flesh of the animal; the flabby parts; the
dew-laps. In animals commonly these parts about the neck and belly are soft, pendulous,
and contribute little to their strength. The meaning here is, that in the leviathan, instead
of being thus flabby and pendulous, they were compact and firm. This is strikingly true
of the crocodile. The belly is, indeed, more soft and penetrable than the other parts of
the body, but there is nothing like the soft and pendulous dew-laps of most animals.
CLARKE, "The flakes of his flesh - His muscles are strongly and firmly
compacted.
GILL,"The flakes of his flesh are joined together,.... The muscles of his hefty are
not flaccid and flabby, but solid and firmly compacted;
they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved; that is, not very easily, not
without a large sharp cutting knife, and that used with much strength.
JAMISO ,"flakes — rather, “dewlaps”; that which falls down (Margin). They are
“joined” fast and firm, together, not hanging loose, as in the ox.
are firm — Umbreit and Maurer, “are spread.”
in themselves — rather, “upon him.”
PULPIT, "The flakes of his flesh are joined together. Even the softer muscles, and
parts which in most animals are yielding and flabby, in the crocodile are bound up,
and, as it were, soldered together (comp. Job 41:17). They are firm in themselves;
rather, they are firm upon him; literally, fused upon him, like detached pieces of
metal, which are melted one into another. They cannot be moved. His whole body is
so firmly compacted together that it is all one piece; the separate parts cannot be
moved separately. One result is that the crocodile has great difficulty in turning.
24 Its chest is hard as rock,
hard as a lower millstone.

60. BAR ES, "His heart is as firm as a stone - As hard; as solid. Bochart remarks
that the word “heart” here is not to be regarded as denoting the “courage” of the animal,
as it sometimes does, but the heart literally. The statement occurs in the description of
the various parts of the animal, and the object is to show that there was special firmness
or solidity in every one of his members. There is special firmness or strength needed in
the “hearts” of all animals, to enable them to propel the blood through the arteries of the
body; and in an animal of the size of the crocodile, it is easy to see that the heart must be
made capable of exerting vast force. But there is no reason to suppose that the
affirmation here is made on the supposition that there is need of extraordinary strength
in the heart to propel the blood. The doctrine of the circulation of the blood was not then
known to mankind, and it is to be presumed that the argument here would be based on
what “was” known, or what might be easily observed. The presumption therefore is, that
the statement here is based on what had been “seen” of the remarkable compactness and
firmness of the heart of the animal here referred to. Probably there was nothing so
unique in the heart of the crocodile that this description would be applicable to that
animal alone, but it is such doubtless as would apply to the heart of any animal of
extraordinary size and strength.
Yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone - The mills commonly used in
ancient times were hand-mills; see a description of them in the notes at Mat_24:41. Why
the lower stone was the hardest, is not quite apparent. Perhaps a more solid stone might
have been chosen for this, because it was supposed that there was more wear on the
lower than the upper stone, or because its weight would make the machine more solid
and steady.
CLARKE, "Hard as a piece of the nether millstone - Which is required to be
harder than that which runs above.
GILL,"His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether
millstone. Which must be understood not of the substance but of the qualities of it,
being bold, courageous, undaunted, and unmerciful; which is true both of the whale and
crocodile, and particularly of the crocodile: Aelianus (z) relates of one sort of them that
they are unmerciful, though elsewhere (a), he represents them as fearful.
JAMISO ,"heart — “In large beasts which are less acute in feeling, there is great
firmness of the heart, and slower motion” [Bochart]. The nether millstone, on which the
upper turns, is especially hard.
PULPIT, "His heart is firm as a stone. Some regard this as intended physically, and
note that the great saurians, with their cold and sluggish circulation, have hearts
which are comparatively torpid, not contracting or expanding readily. Others take

61. the "stony heart" to mean a fierce and obstinate disposition. In either case, the
description will well suit the crocodile. Yea, as hard as a piece of the nether
millstone. A repetition and slight exaggeration of the preceding idea.
25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
they retreat before its thrashing.
BAR ES, "When he raiseth up himself - When he rouses himself for an attack
or in self-defense.
The mighty are afraid - The Vulgate renders this “anqels.” The meaning is, that he
produces alarm on those who are unaccustomed to fear.
By reason of breakings they purify themselves - This, though a literal
translation, conveys no very clear idea, and this rendering is not necessary. The word
rendered “breakings” (‫שׁבר‬ sheber) means properly “a breaking, breach, puncture”; “a
breaking down, destruction”; and then it may mean “a breaking down of the mind, that
is, terror.” This is evidently the meaning here. “By reason of the prostration of their
courage, or the crushing of the mind by alarm.” The word rendered “purify themselves”
(‫חטא‬ châᑛâ') means in the Qal, “to miss,” as a mark; “to sin; to err.” In the form of
Hithpael, which occurs here, it means to miss one’s way; “to lose oneself;” and it may
refer to the astonishment and terror by which one is led to miss his way in precipitate
flight. “Gesenius.” The meaning then is, “They lose themselves from terror.” They know
not where to turn themselves; they flee away with alarm; see Rosenmuller in loc.
CLARKE, "By reason of breakings they purify themselves - No version,
either ancient or modern, appears to have understood this verse; nor is its true sense
known. The Septuagint have, “When he turns himself, he terrifies all the quadrupeds on
the earth.” The original is short and obscure: ‫יתחטאו‬ ‫משברים‬ mishshebarim yithchattau. Mr.
Good takes the plural termination ‫ים‬ im, from the first word, of which he makes the
noun ‫ים‬ yam, the sea, and thus translates it, “They are confounded at the tumult of the
sea.” In this I can find no more light than in our own. Mr. Heath has, “For very terror
they fall to the ground.” The translations of it are as unsatisfactory as they are various. I
shall give both the verses from Coverdale: -
His herte is as harde as a stone; and as fast as the stythye (anvil) that the hammer
man smyteth upon: when he goeth the mightiest off all are afrayed, and the waives
hevy. The dull swell in the waters proclaims his advance; and when this is perceived, the
stout-hearted tremble.

62. GILL,"When he raiseth up himself,.... Not out of the waters, but above the surface
of them, so as that his large bulk, his terrible jaws and teeth, are seem;
the mighty are afraid; not only fishes and other animals, but men, and these the most
stouthearted and courageous, as mariners and masters of vessels;
by reason of breakings they purify themselves: either because of the breaches of
the sea made through the lifting up of this creature, threatening the overturning of
vessels; or of the breaches of men's hearts through fear, they are thrown into a vomiting,
and purging both by stool and urine, which are often the effects of fear, so Ben Gersom;
or they acknowledge themselves sinners, or expiate themselves, endeavouring to do it by
making confession of sin, declaring repentance for it, praying for forgiveness of it, and
promising amendment; which is frequently the case of seafaring men in distress; see
Jon_1:4.
JAMISO ,"he — the crocodile; a type of the awe which the Creator inspires when He
rises in wrath.
breakings — namely, of the mind, that is, terror.
purify themselves — rather, “they wander from the way,” that is, flee away
bewildered [Maurer and Umbreit].
BE SO ,"Job 41:25. When he raiseth up himself — Showing himself upon the top
of the waters; the mighty are afraid — Even the stout-hearted, who used to be above
fear. By reason of breakings — By reason of their great danger and distress; which
is expressed by this very word, Psalms 60:2; Jonah 1:4. They purify themselves —
Those who ordinarily live in the neglect of God; they cry unto God in their trouble,
and endeavour to purge their consciences from the guilt of their sins. Houbigant
translates this verse, When he raiseth up himself, the mighty flee; the princes quit
their purposed journey. But Heath interprets the last clause thus: for very terror
they fall to the ground; and he observes, very properly, that the word
‫,שׁבר‬ sheber, here used, strongly expresses the idea of terror; our English word
shiver is thought to have been derived from it. Henry, who understands this, and all
the other parts of this description, of the whale, thus paraphrases this verse: “When
he raiseth up himself, like a moving mountain in the great waters, even the mighty
are afraid, lest he overturn their ships, or do them some other mischief: by reason of
the breakings he makes in the water, which threaten death, they purify themselves,
confess their sins, betake themselves to their prayers, and get ready for death.” Dr.
Young, who understands it of the crocodile, to which it is manifestly more
applicable, interprets it thus:
“When late awaked, he rears him from the floods,
And stretching forth his stature to the clouds,

63. Writhes in the sun aloft his scaly height,
And strikes the distant hills with transient light;
Far round are fatal damps of terror spread,
The mighty fear, nor blush to own their dread.”
COKE, "Job 41:25. When he raiseth up himself, &c.— When he raiseth up himself,
the mighty fly; the princes quit their purposed journey. Houb. Heath renders the
last clause; for very terror they fall to the ground; and he observes very well, that
the word ‫שׁבר‬ sheber, here used, strongly expresses the idea of terror: our English
word shiver seems derived from it.
ELLICOTT, "(25) By reason of breakings—i.e., the waves he makes in the water, or
the breakings he makes among the plants and trees in the water.
They purify themselves—i.e., they are beside themselves; they are so overwhelmed
with terror, that they take themselves off, as those who have to dwell apart for
uncleanness.
ISBET, "A AWE-I SPIRI G OBJECT
‘When He raiseth up Himself, the mighty are afraid.’
Job 41:25
Leviathan is almost certainly the crocodile, and there is the playfulness of a great
tenderness in the suggestions Jehovah makes to Job about these fierce creations.
Can Job catch him with a rope or a hook? Will he pray to Job? Will Job make a
servant or a plaything of him for himself or his maidens? There is a fine and yet
most tender and humorous satire in the words of Jehovah—
‘Lay thine hand upon him;
Remember the battle, and do so no more.’
If none dare stir up leviathan, who can stand before God? If Job dare not attempt to
catch or subdue or play with this animal, how can he hope to enter into competition
in the government of the universe with God? The question being asked, the
description returns to the beast in all the magnificence of his strength, and ends with
a picture of men attempting to overcome him with sword, or spear, or dart, or
pointed shaft; while all the while in fierce anger he holds the citadel of his being,
and becomes king over all the sons of pride.
I. What a magnificent description of the crocodile!—There is nothing to compare
with it in any page of the world’s literature. The inference is that the Maker of so
marvellous an animal must be superlatively great. If the creature be so wonderful,

64. what must not the Creator be? If you cannot approach or tame the monster, which
buries itself in the seething water and eludes your sight, how helpless you are to
follow the track of the Divine Providence, or bend it to your will!
II. One great lesson from all these chapters seems to be the desirability of
acquainting ourselves with the works of God in ature.— o devout student in the
school of this instructress can ever leave it without loftier conceptions of Him Whose
handmaiden ature is. A great God is the goal which they must reach who travel,
from the tiny gnat that blows its horn, or the smallest humming-bird that glances in
the sunbeam. ature is always beautiful, but to the ordinary eye of men’s curiosity
or admiration she does not unfold her choicest aspects. There is a colour in the
rainbow which evades, and a music in the waterfall which eludes, and a note in the
storm which remains unheard by any, save those whose heart is pure and childlike
and full of the love of God. If this be yours, adopt some line of natural study, have
your hobby, as they say. It may be a shell, an egg, a fossil, a cone, an orchid, but
each of these may lead your thoughts to God.
PULPIT, "When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid. Egyptian historians
said that one of their early kings had been slain by a crocodile. The worship paid to
crocodiles in some parts of Egypt, and the hatred felt towards them in others, were
probably alike inspired by fear. AElian says that, in the districts where crocodiles
were worshipped, it was not safe for any one to wash his feet or to draw water at
the.river, and that in the vicinity of some towns people did not dare to walk along
the bank of the stream (' at. An.,' 10.24). In modern times they have been known to
precipitate men from the bank into the water by a sweep of their tail, and then to
devour them at their leisure. By reason of breakings they purify themselves; rather,
they are confounded. The "breakings" may by either the breakings forth of the
animal from his lair among the ile rushes, or his "breaking" of the weapons of his
assailants.
26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
BAR ES, "The sword of him that layeth at him - The word “sword” here (‫חרב‬
chereb) means undoubtedly “harpoon,” or a sharp instrument by which an attempt is

65. made to pierce the skin of the monster.
Cannot hold - That is, in the hard skin. It does not penetrate it.
The spear, the dart - These were doubtless often used in the attempt to take the
animal. The meaning is, that “they” would not hold or stick to the animal. They flew off
when hurled at him.
Nor the habergeon - Margin, “breastplate.” Noyes, “javelin.” Prof. Lee, “lance.”
Vulgate, “thorax, breastplate.” So the Septuagint, θώρακα thōraka. The word used here
(‫שׁריה‬ shiryâh), the same as ‫שׁריון‬ shiryôn 1Sa_17:5, 1Sa_17:38; Neh_4:16; 2Ch_26:14,
means properly a “coat of mail,” and is so called from its shining - from ‫שׁרה‬ shârâh, “to
shine.” It is not used in the sense of spear or javelin elsewhere, though perhaps it may
have that meaning here - denoting a “bright” or “shining” weapon. This agrees best with
the connection.
CLARKE, "Habergeon - The hauberk, the Norman armor for the head, neck, and
breast, formed of rings. See on Neh_4:16 (note).
GILL,"The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold,.... It is either broken by
striking at him, or however cannot pierce him and stick in him; but since a sword is not
used in fishery, rather the harpagon or harpoon may be meant, which cannot enter into
the crocodile, being so fenced with scales; but the whale being struck with it, it enters
deep into his flesh, and is wounded by it; wherefore this and what follows in the next
verses seems best to agree with the crocodile, or some other fish;
the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon; that is, neither of these can fasten upon
him or enter into him: and yet it is certain that the whale, after he has been struck and
wounded by the harping-iron, men approach nearer to him and thrust a long steeled
lance or spear under his gills into his breast, and through the intestines, which
dispatches him: darts are not made use of in the whale fishery; and as for crocodiles, as
Peter Martyr says (c), they are not to be pierced with darts: the habergeon, or coat of
mail, being a defensive piece of armour, seems not to be designed, as being never used in
taking such creatures; rather therefore a javelin or hand dart may be intended; since, as
Bochart observes, in the Arabic language such an one is expressed by this word.
JAMISO ,"cannot hold — on his hard skin.
habergeon — coat of mail; avail must be taken by zeugma out of “hold,” as the verb
in the second clause: “hold” cannot apply to the “coat of mail.”
K&D 26-29, "‫הוּ‬ֵ‫יג‬ ִ ַ‫,מ‬ which stands first as nom. abs., “one reaching him,” is equivalent
to, if one or whoever reaches him, Ew. §357, c, to which ‫קוּם‬ ָ‫ת‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ , it does not hold fast (‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ
with v. fin., as Hos_8:7; Hos_9:16, Chethîb), is the conclusion. ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ח‬ is instrumental, as

66. Psa_17:13. ‫ע‬ ָ ַ‫,מ‬ from ‫ע‬ ַ‫ס‬ָ‫,נ‬ Arab. nz‛, to move on, hasten on, signifies a missile, as Arab.
minz‛a, an arrow, manz‛a, a sling. The Targ. supports this latter signification here (funda
quae projicit lapidem); but since ‫לא‬ ֶ‫,ק‬ the handling, is mentioned separately, the word
appears to men missiles in general, or the catapult. In this combination of weapons of
attack it is very questionable whether ‫ה‬ָ‫י‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ is a cognate form of ‫ּון‬‫י‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ (‫ן‬ָ‫י‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫,)שׁ‬ a coat of mail;
probably it is equivalent to Arab. sirwe (surwe), an arrow with a long broad edge (comp.
serıje, a short, round, as it seems, pear-shaped arrow-head), therefore either a harpoon
or a peculiarly formed dart.
(Note: On the various kinds of Egyptian arrows, vid., Klemm. Culturgeschichte, v.
371f.)
“The son of the bow” (and of the ‫ה‬ ָ ְ‫שׁ‬ፍ, pharetra) is the arrow. That the ᅋπ. γεγρ. ‫ח‬ ָ‫ּות‬‫ת‬
signifies a club (war-club), is supported by the Arab. watacha, to beat. ‫ּון‬‫ד‬‫י‬ ִⅴ, in distinction
from ‫ית‬ִ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ח‬ (a long lance), is a short spear, or rather, since ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ע‬ ַ‫ר‬ implies a whistling motion,
a javelin. Iron the crocodile esteems as ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ב‬ ֶ , tibn, chopped straw; sling stones are turned
with him into ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫.ק‬ Such is the name here at least, not for stumps of cut stubble that
remain standing, but the straw itself, threshed and easily driven before the wind (Job_
13:25), which is cut up for provender (Exo_5:12), generally dried (and for that reason
light) stalks (e.g., of grass), or even any remains of plants (e.g., splinters of wood).
(Note: The Egyptio-Arabic usage has here more faithfully preserved the ancient
signification of the word (vid., Fleischer, Glossae, p. 37) than the Syro-Arabic; for in
Syria cut but still unthreshed corn, whether lying in swaths out in the field and
weighted with stones to protect it against the whirlwinds that are frequent about
noon, or corn already brought to the threshing-floors but not yet threshed, is called
qashsh. - Wetzst.)
The plur. ‫בוּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ח‬ֶ‫,נ‬ Job_41:29, does not seem to be occasioned by ‫תותח‬ being conceived
collectively, but by the fact that, instead of saying ‫וכידון‬ ‫,תותח‬ the poet has formed ‫וכידון‬
into a separate clause. Parchon's (and Kimchi's) reading ‫ח‬ ָ‫ּוח‬‫ת‬ is founded upon an error.
BE SO ,"Job 41:26. The sword of him that layeth at him — That approacheth to
him, and dares to strike at him; cannot hold — Hebrew, ‫תקום‬ ‫,בלי‬ beli takum, cannot
stand. Either, 1st, Cannot endure the stroke, but will be broken by it; or, 2d, Cannot
take hold of him, or abide fixed in him; but is instantly beaten back by the excessive
hardness of his skin, which cannot be pierced by it. This also seems much better to
agree to the crocodile, whose skin no sword, nor dart, nor (as some add) musket-ball
can pierce, than to the whale, whose skin is easily pierced, as experience shows,
except the whales here spoken of were of another kind than those we are acquainted
with. or the habergeon — Hebrew, ‫,שׁריה‬ shirjah, which the margin of our Bible
renders, breast-plate, and Ab. Ezra, a coat of mail, as the word means 1 Samuel
17:38 . But Heath and Houbigant translate it here, the pike; and it evidently means
some missile weapon.

67. COFFMA , ""Sling-stones are turned with him into stubble" (Job 41:28). The
sling, of course, was a deadly weapon both for war and for hunting. David, it will be
remembered, used this weapon in his triumph over Goliath of Gath. It is surprising
that it is mentioned here; because, "There is no evidence that it was ever used in an
effort to destroy a crocodile. What is meant is that no ordinary weapon of any kind
was effective against the crocodile."[27]
"His underparts are sharp like potsherds" (Job 41:30). See quotation from Driver
under Job 41:23, above.
"He maketh the deep to boil like a pot ... a path to shine after him (in the deep); one
would think the deep to be hoary" (Job 41:31-32). Barnes and other scholars
remind us that "the deep" in these verses is not a reference to the ocean but to the
ile river, which in ancient times was often referred to as `the sea.'[28] The path
that the crocodile made to shine after him appears to be a reference to the wake
following the crocodile's movement through the water, reflecting the sunlight. We
also have here a reference to, "Leviathan's motion in the water, which he churns up
to a foam."[29] "It is generally allowed that by `the sea' here is meant `the ile,' as
in Isaiah 19:2; 18:5, and ahum 3:8."[30]
"He is king over all the sons of pride" (Job 41:34). "The sons of pride here are the
proud beasts of prey."[31] If one wonders why both the behemoth and the leviathan
are called "kings," it is because behemoth was king of the beasts, and leviathan was
king of the reptiles.
COKE, "Job 41:26. The habergeon— The pike. Heath and Houb. It certainly means
some missile weapon.
ELLICOTT, "(26) The sword of him that layeth at him.—Literally, As to one
approaching him (to slay him), his sword cannot stand; it will snap in his hand.
PULPIT, "The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold. It either makes no
impression or it snaps in his hand. Equally vain are the spear, the dart, and the
javelin. Habergeon is a mistranslation.
27 Iron it treats like straw
and bronze like rotten wood.

68. BAR ES, "He esteemeth iron as straw - He regards instruments made of iron
and brass as if they were straw or rotten wood. That is, they make no impression on him.
This will agree better with the crocodile than any other animal. So hard is his skin, that a
musket-ball will not penetrate it; see numerous quotations proving the hardness of the
skin of the crooodile, in Bochart.
GILL,"He esteemeth iron as straw,.... You may as well cast a straw at him as a bar
of iron; it will make no impression on his steeled back, which is as a coat of mail to him;
so Eustathius affirms (d) that the sharpest iron is rebounded and blunted by him;
and brass as rotten wood; or steel, any instrument made of it, though ever so strong
or piercing.
JAMISO ,"iron ... brass — namely, weapons.
BE SO ,"Job 41:27-28. He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood —
He neither fears, nor feels, the blows of the one more than of the other. The arrow
cannot make him flee — Hebrew, the son of the bow, as it is elsewhere called, the
son of the quiver, Lamentations 3:13; the quiver being, as it were, the mother, or
womb, that bears it, and the bow as the father that begets it, or sendeth it forth.
Sling-stones — Great stones cast out of slings, which have a great force and efficacy,
2 Chronicles 26:14; are turned with him into stubble — Hurt him no more than a
blow with a little stubble. Heath renders this clause, He throweth about sling-stones
like stubble; and Houbigant, Sling-stones are no more to him than stubble. An
extraordinary instance of the strength of a crocodile is related by Maillet. “I saw
one,” says he, “twelve feet long, which had not eaten any thing for thirty-five days,
having had its mouth tied close during that interval, which, from a single blow from
its tail, overturned five or six men together, with a bale of coffee, as easily as I could
overturn six men at a game of draughts.” What force then must one of twenty feet
long have in its full strength, and not weakened by such a fast? Thevenot also
speaks of one that he had stripped of his skin, and says, that “it was so strong,
though but eight feet in length, that after they had turned him upon his back, and
four persons stood upon him with both their feet, while they were cutting open his
belly, he moved himself with so much force as to throw them off with violence.” See
Maillet’s Description of Egypt, page 33, and Thevenot, part 2. page 72.
PULPIT, "He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass (rather, bronze) as rotten wood.
Even the hardest metals are useless against the crocodile. Moderns observe that
even firearms are of little avail against him. The back and tail, at any rate, resist
musket-balls (Bochart); and a rifle-bullet will glance aside if it strikes one of the

69. scales (Tristram); see Job 41:15.
28 Arrows do not make it flee;
slingstones are like chaff to it.
BAR ES, "The arrow - Hebrew “the son of the bow.” So Lam_3:13, margin. This
use of the word son is common in the Scriptures and in all Oriental poetry.
Sling-stones - The sling was early used in war and in hunting, and by skill and
practice it could be so employed as to be a formidable weapon; see Jdg_20:16; 1Sa_
17:40, 1Sa_17:49. As one of the weapons of attack on a foe it is mentioned here, though
there is no evidence that the sling was ever actually used in endeavoring to destroy the
crocodile. The meaning is, that all the common weapons used by men in attacking an
enemy had no effect on him.
Are turned with him into stubble - Produce no more effect on him than it would
to throw stubble at him.
GILL,"The arrow cannot make him flee,.... The skin of the crocodile is so hard, as
Peter Martyr says, that it cannot be pierced with arrows, as before observed; therefore it
is not afraid of them, nor will flee from them;
slingstones are turned with him into stubble; are no more regarded by him than
if stubble was cast at him; not only stones out of a sling, but out of an engine; and such is
the hardness of the skin of the crocodile, that, as Isidore says (e), the strokes of the
strongest stones are rebounded by it, yea, even it is said to withstand against musket
shot (f).
JAMISO ,"arrow — literally, “son of the bow”; Oriental imagery (Lam_3:13;
Margin).
stubble — Arrows produce no more effect than it would to throw stubble at him.
COKE, "Job 41:28. Sling-stones are turned with him into stubble— He throweth
about sling-stones like stubble. Heath. Sling-stones are no more to him than stubble.
Houb. An extraordinary instance of the strength of a crocodile is related by Maillet.
"I saw one," says he, "twelve feet long, which had not eaten any thing for thirty-five
days (having had its mouth tied close during that interval), which with a single blow

70. from its tail overturned five or six men together with a bale of coffee, as easily as I
could overturn six men at a game of draughts." What force then must one of twenty
feet long have, in its full strength and not weakened by such a fast? Thevenot also
speaks of one which he had stripped of its skin, and says, that it was so strong,
though but eight feet in length, that after they had turned him upon his back, and
four persons stood upon him with both their feet, while they were cutting open his
belly, he moved himself with so much force as to throw them off him with violence.
See Maillet's Descript. of Egypt, p. 33, and Thevenot, part. 2: p. 72.
PULPIT, "The arrow cannot make him flee; literally, the son of the bow (comp.
Lamentations 3:13, where arrows are called "sons of the quiver"). Sling-stones are
turned with him into stubble. (On "stubble" as a metaphor for weakness, see above,
Job 21:18, and compare the next verse.)
29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
BAR ES, "Darts are counted as stubble - The word rendered “darts” (‫תותח‬
tôthâch) occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures. It is from ‫,יתח‬ obsolete root, “to beat with
a club.” The word here probably means clubs. Darts and spears are mentioned before,
and the object seems to be to enumerate all the usual, instruments of attack. The
singular is used here with a plural verb in a collective sense.
CLARKE, "Darts are counted as stubble - All these verses state that he cannot
be wounded by any kind of weapon, and that he cannot be resisted by any human
strength. A young crocodile, seen by M. Maillet, twelve feet long, and which had not
eaten a morsel for thirty-five days, its mouth having been tied all that time, was
nevertheless so strong, that with a blow of its tail it overturned a bale of coffee, and five
or six men, with the utmost imaginable ease! What power then must lodge in one twenty
feet long, well fed, and in health!
GILL,"Darts are counted as stubble,.... Darts being mentioned before, perhaps
something else is meant here, and, according to Ben Gersom, the word signifies an
engine out of which stones are cast to batter down walls; but these are of no avail against

71. the leviathan;
he laugheth at the shaking of a spear; at him, knowing it cannot hurt him; the
crocodile, as Thevenot says (g), is proof against the halberd. The Septuagint version is,
"the shaking of the pyrophorus", or torch bearer; one that carried a torch before the
army, who, when shook, it was a token to begin the battle; which the leviathan being
fearless of laughs at it; See Gill on Oba_1:18.
JAMISO ,"Darts — rather, “clubs”; darts have been already mentioned (Job_
41:26).
PULPIT, "Darts are counted as stubble; rather, the club is counted as stubble.
Maces, either of hard wood or of metal, were used by the Assyrians. They had heavy
heads, and were quite as effective weapons as either swords or spears. If a strong
man could have succeeded in dealing a blow with one on the head of a crocodile, it
would probably have proved fatal; but intending assailants were doubtless charged,
and scattered "as stubble," before they could find opportunity to strike. He
laugheth at the shaking of a spear; rather, at the rushing of the javelin (see the
Revised Version).
30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing
sledge.
BAR ES, "Sharp stones are under him - Margin, as in Hebrew, “pieces of pot
sherd.” The Hebrew word (‫חדוד‬ chaddûd), means “sharp, pointed”; and the phrase used
here means “the sharp points of a potsherd,” or broken pieces of earthenware. The
reference is, undoubtedly, to the scales of the animal, which were rough and pointed,
like the broken pieces of earthenware. This description would not agree with the whale,
and indeed will accord with no other animal so well as with the crocodile. The meaning
is, that the under parts of his body, with which he rests upon the mire, are made up of
sharp, pointed things, like broken pottery.
He spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire - That is, when he rests or
stretches himself on the mud or slime of the bank of the river. The word used here and
rendered “sharp pointed things” (‫חרוץ‬ chârûts) means properly something “cut in;” then
something sharpened or pointed; and is used to denote “a threshing sledge;” see this

72. instrument described in Isa_28:27-28, note; Isa_41:15, note. It is not certain, however,
that there is any allusion here to that instrument. It is rather to anything that is rough or
pointed, and refers to the lower part of the animal as having this character. The Vulgate
renders this, “Beneath him are the rays of the sun, and he reposeth on gold as on clay.”
Dr. Harris, Dr. Good, and Prof. Lee, suppose it refers to what the animal lies on,
meaning that he lies on splinters of rock and broken stone with as much readiness and
ease as if it were clay. But the above seems to me to be the true interpretation. It is that
of Gesenius, Rosenmuller, and Umbreit. Grotius understands it as meaning that the
weapons thrown at him lie around him like broken pieces of pottery.
CLARKE, "Sharp stones are under him - So hard and impenetrable are his scales,
that splinters of flint are the same to him as the softest reeds.
GILL,"Sharp stones are under him,.... And yet give him no pain nor uneasiness;
he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire; and makes his bed of them
and lies upon them; as sharp stones, as before, shells of fishes, broken pieces of darts,
arrows, and javelins thrown at him, which fall around him: this does not so well agree
with the crocodile, the skin of whose belly is soft and thin; wherefore dolphins plunge
under it and cut it with a thorn, as Pliny (h) relates, or with spiny fins (i); but with the
whale, which lies among hard rocks and sharp stones, and large cutting pieces of ice, as
in the northern seas.
JAMISO ,"stones — rather, “potsherds,” that is, the sharp and pointed scales on
the belly, like broken pieces of pottery.
sharp-pointed things — rather, “a threshing instrument,” but not on the fruits of
the earth, but “on the mire”; irony. When he lies on the mire, he leaves the marks of his
scales so imprinted on it, that one might fancy a threshing instrument with its sharp
teeth had been drawn over it (Isa_28:27).
K&D 30-34, "Under it, or, ‫יו‬ ָ ְ‫ח‬ ַ taken like ‫ת‬ ַ‫ח‬ ַ , Job_41:11, as a virtual subject (vid.,
Job_28:5): its under parts are the most pointed or sharpest shards, i.e., it is furnished
with exceedingly pointed scales. ‫וּד‬ ַ‫ח‬ is the intensive form of ‫ד‬ ַ‫ח‬ (Arab. hadıd, sharpened =
iron, p. 542, note), as ‫וּק‬ ַ‫,ח‬ 1Sa_17:40, of ‫ק‬ ָ‫ל‬ ָ‫ח‬ (smooth),
(Note: In Arabic also this substantival form is intensive, e.g., lebbûn, an
exceedingly large kind of tile, dried in the open air, of which farm-yards are built,
nearly eight times larger than the common tile, which is called libne (‫ח‬ָ‫נ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫).)ל‬
and the combination ‫שׂ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ָ‫ח‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫וּד‬ ַ‫ח‬ (equal the combination ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫ר‬ ֲ‫ֽח‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫,חדודי‬ comp. Job_30:6) is
moreover superlative: in the domain of shards standing prominent as sharp ones, as
Arab. chairu ummatin, the best people, prop. bon en fait de peuple (Ew. §313, c. Gramm.
Arab. §532). lxx ᅧ στρωµνᆱ αᆒτοሞ ᆆβελίσκοι ᆆξεሏς, by drawing ‫ד‬ ַ ְ‫ר‬ִ‫י‬ to Job_41:30, and so
translating as though it were ‫ּו‬‫ת‬ ָ‫יד‬ ִ‫פ‬ ְ‫ר‬ (Arab. rifâde, stratum). The verb ‫ד‬ ַ‫פ‬ ָ‫ר‬ (rafada), cogn.

73. ‫ד‬ ַ‫ב‬ ָ‫,ר‬ signifies sternere (Job_17:13), and then also culcire; what is predicated cannot be
referred to the belly of the crocodile, the scales of which are smooth, but to the tail with
its scales, which more or less strongly protrude, are edged round by a shallow cavity, and
therefore are easily and sharply separated when pressed; and the meaning is, that when
it presses its under side in the morass, it appears as though a threshing-sledge with its
iron teeth had been driven across it.
The pictures in Job_41:31 are true to nature; Bartram, who saw two alligators fighting,
says that their rapid passage was marked by the surface of the water as it were boiling.
With ‫ה‬ ָ‫צוּל‬ ְ‫,מ‬ a whirlpool, abyss, depth (from ‫צוּל‬ = ‫ל‬ ַ‫ל‬ ָ‫,צ‬ to hiss, clash; to whirl, surge), ‫ם‬ָ‫י‬
alternates; the Nile even in the present day is called bahr (sea) by the Beduins, and also
compared, when it overflows its banks, to a sea. The observation that the animal diffuses
a strong odour of musk, has perhaps its share in the figure of the pot of ointment (lxx
ᆢσπερ ᅚξάλειπτρον, which Zwingli falsely translates spongia); a double gland in the tail
furnishes the Egyptians and Americans their (pseudo) musk. In Job_41:32 the bright
white trail that the crocodile leaves behind it on the surface of the water is intended; in
Job_41:32 the figure is expressed which underlies the descriptions of the foaming sea
with πολιός, canus, in the classic poets. ‫ה‬ ָ‫יב‬ ֵ‫,שׂ‬ hoary hair, was to the ancients the most
beautiful, most awe-inspiring whiteness. ‫ּו‬‫ל‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫,מ‬ Job_41:33, understood by the Targ., Syr.,
Arab. version, and most moderns (e.g., Hahn: there is not on earth any mastery over it),
according to Zec_9:10, is certainly, with lxx, Jer., and Umbr., not to be understood
differently from the Arab. mithlahu (its equal); whether it be an inflexion of ‫ל‬ ֶ‫ּשׁ‬‫מ‬, or what
is more probable, of ‫ּל‬‫שׁ‬ ְ‫מ‬ (comp. Job_17:6, where this nomen actionis signifies a proverb
= word of derision, and ‫ל‬ ֵ ַ‫מ‬ ְ‫ת‬ ִ‫,ה‬ to compare one's self, be equal, Job_30:19). ‫ר‬ ָ‫פ‬ ָ‫ל־ע‬ ַ‫ע‬ is also
Hebr.-Arab.; the Arabic uses turbe, formed from turâb (vid., on Job_19:25), of the
surface of the earth, and et-tarbâ-u as the name of the earth itself. ‫שׂוּ‬ ָ‫ע‬ ֶ‫ה‬ (for ‫שׂוּי‬ ָ‫ע‬ ֶ‫,ה‬ as ‫פוּ‬ ָ‫,צ‬
Job_15:22, Cheth. = ‫פוּי‬ ָ‫,צ‬ resolved from ‫שׂוּו‬ ָ‫,ע‬ ‛asûw, 1Sa_25:18, Cheth.) is the
confirmatory predicate of the logical subj. described in Job_41:33 as incomparable; and
‫ת‬ ָ‫י־ח‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫ל‬ (from ‫ת‬ ַ‫,ח‬ the a of which becomes i in inflexion), absque terrore (comp. Job_
38:4), is virtually a nom. of the predicate: the created one (becomes) a terrorless one (a
being that is terrified by nothing). Everything high, as the ‫,לבלי־חת‬ Job_41:33, is more
exactly explained, it looketh upon, i.e., remains standing before it, without turning away
affrighted; in short, it (the leviathan) is king over all the sons of pride, i.e., every beast of
prey that proudly roams about (vid., on Job_28:8).
BE SO , "Job 41:30. Sharp stones — ‫חרשׂ‬ ‫,חדודי‬ chadudee chares, acumina testæ,
vel testacea, sharp points of potsherds, are under him — He can repose himself on
rocks, or stones, whose edges, or points, are sharp, like those of shells, or broken
potsherds; and yet he is not sensible of them, says R. Levi. and Ab. Ezra. His skin is
so hard and impenetrable that they make no impression upon him, but are as easy
to him as a bed of clay. He spreadeth sharp pointed things: &c. — Hebrew, ‫,חרוצ‬
charutz, acutum, any thing which cuts, or makes an incision. The word also means,
and is rendered by Bochart, tribula, an instrument used in thrashing corn, a kind of

74. sledge, furnished with sharp iron wheels, which was drawn over the straw by oxen,
and at the same time thrashed out the corn, and cut the straw into small pieces,
reducing it to chaff. Heath, therefore, translates the verse, His nether parts are like
sharp potsherds: he dasheth himself on the mud like a thrashing-cart.
COKE, "Job 41:30. Sharp stones are under him— His nether parts are like sharp
potsherds. He dasheth himself on the mud like a threshing cart. Heath. ‫חרוצ‬ charutz,
is rightly rendered by Bochart tribula, an instrument used in threshing of corn, a
kind of sledge, furnished with sharp iron wheels. This was drawn over the straw by
oxen, and at the same time thrashed out the corn, and cut the straw into small
pieces, reducing it to chaff. An instrument of this kind is still used in the east for the
same purpose. See Parkhurst on the word, and Observations, p. 142.
ELLICOTT, "(30) He spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.—Some
render, “He spreadeth, as it were, a threshing-wain upon the mire.” The statement
is, that he not only can lie without inconvenience upon sharp-pointed things, but his
own body presents a sharp surface to the mud he lies on.
PULPIT, "Sharp stones are under him; rather, jagged potsherds are under him; i.e.
"his belly is covered with jagged scales"—a thing which is true of the crocodile, but
scarcely of any other beast. He spreadeth sharp pointed things (rather, a threshing-
wain, or a corn-drag) upon the mire. He leaves on the mud on which he has lain, i.e.'
an impression as of an Oriental threshing-wain, or corn-drag, which is "a thick
plank of timber, stuck full on the under side, of flints or hard cutting stones
arranged in the form of the palate or rough tongue of a cow". The mud-banks on
which crocodiles have been lying are said to be scored all over with such
impressions.
31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling
caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
BAR ES, "He maketh the deep to boil like a pot - In his rapid motion through
it. The word “deep” (‫מצולה‬ me
tsôlâh) may refer to any deep place - either of the sea, of a
river, or of mire, Psa_69:2. It is applied to the depths of the sea, Jon_2:3; Mic_7:19; but

75. there is nothing in the word that will prevent its application to a large river like the Nile -
the usual abode of the crocodile.
He maketh the sea - The word “sea” (‫ים‬ yâm) is often applied to a large river, like
the Nile or the Euphrates; see the notes at Isa_19:5.
Like a pot of ointment - When it is mixed, or stirred together. Bochart supposes
that there is an allusion here to the smell of musk, which it is said the crocodile has, and
by which the waters through which he passes seem to be perfumed. But the allusion
seems rather to be merely to the fact that the deep is agitated by him when he passes
through it, as if it were stirred from the bottom like a pot of ointment.
CLARKE, "He maketh the deep to boil like a pot - This is occasioned by
strongly agitating the waters at or near the bottom; and the froth which arises to the top
from this agitation may have the appearance of ointment. But several travelers say that
the crocodile has a very strong scent of musk, and that he even imparts this smell to the
water through which he passes, and therefore the text may be taken literally. This
property of the crocodile has been noticed by several writers.
GILL,"He maketh the deep to boil (k) like a pot,.... Which is all in a from through
the violent agitation and motion of the waves, caused by its tossing and tumbling about;
which better suits with the whale than the crocodile, whose motion in the water is not so
vehement;
he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment; this also seems to make against the
crocodile, which is a river fish, and is chiefly in the Nile. Lakes indeed are sometimes
called seas, in which crocodiles are found; yea, they are also said to be in the seas, Eze_
32:2; and Pliny (l) speaks of them as common to the land, river, and sea; and the Nile is
in the Alcoran (m) called the sea, and its ancient name was "Oceames" with the
Egyptians, that is, in Greek, "ocean", as Diodorus Siculus (n) affirms; and so it is thought
to be the Egyptian sea in Isa_11:15. It is observed that they leave a sweet scent behind
them; thus Peter Martyr (o), in his account of the voyages of Columbus in the West
Indies, says, they sometimes met with crocodiles, which, when they fled or took water,
they left a very sweet savour behind them, sweeter than musk or castoreum. But this
does not come up to the expression here of making the sea like a pot of ointment; but the
sperm of the whale comes much nearer to it, which is of a fat oily nature, and like
ointment, and which the whale sometimes throws out in great abundance, so that the sea
is covered with it; whole pails full may be taken out of the water; it swims upon the sea
like fat; abundance of it is seen in calm weather, so that it makes the sea all foul and
slimy (p): and there are a sort of birds called "mallemuck", which fly in great numbers
and feed upon it (q). I cannot but remark what the bishop of Bergen observes (r) of the
sea serpent, that its excrements float on the water in summertime like fat slime.
JAMISO ,"Whenever he moves.
sea — the Nile (Isa_19:5; Nah_3:8).
pot of ointment — the vessel in which it is mixed. Appropriate to the crocodile,

76. which emits a musky smell.
BE SO , "Job 41:31-32. He maketh the deep — The deep waters; to boil like a pot
— To swell, and foam, and froth, by his strong and vehement motion, as any liquor
does when it is boiled in a pot, especially boiling ointment. The sea — Either the
great sea, the proper place of the whale, Psalms 104:25, or the great river ile,
which is called a sea, both in Scripture, as Isaiah 11:15, and in other authors, as
Euphrates is called the sea of Babylon, Isaiah 21:1; Jeremiah 51:36. Lakes also are
most frequently called seas, both in the Old and ew Testament; and in such lakes
the crocodiles are, as well as in the ile. He maketh a path to shine after him —
Houbigant renders the text, He leaves behind him a shining path; that is, the way in
which he moves appears shining and conspicuous, as when a ship sails, and leaves a
visible path behind it, which in the night appears to shine. One would think the deep
to be hoary — It is so covered with froth and foam that it looks as if it were grown
old, and become hoary.
PULPIT, "He maketh the deep to boil like a pot. The rush of the crocodile through
the water of the stream or pool in which he dwells causes a stir and a commotion
which is forcibly compared to the boiling of water in a caldron. He maketh the sea
like a pot of ointment. It is generally allowed that by "the sea" here is meant the
ile, as in Isaiah 18:2; Isaiah 19:5; and ahum 3:8. The swirl of the ile, as the
crocodile makes his rush, is like the heaving of a pot of boiling oil or ointment
32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair.
BAR ES, "He maketh a path to shine after him - This refers doubtless to the
white foam of the waters through which he passes. If this were spoken of some monster
that commonly resides in the ocean, it would not be unnatural to suppose that it refers to
the phosphoric light such as is observed when the waters are agitated, or when a vessel
passes rapidly through them. If it refers, however, to the crocodile, the allusion must be
understood of the hoary appearance of the Nile or the lake where he is found.
One would think the deep to be hoary - Homer often speaks of the sea as πολιᆱν
θάλασσαν poliēn thalassan - “the hoary sea.” So Apollonius, speaking of the Argonauts,
Lib. i. 545:

77. - µακραᆳ δ ʆ αᅶᆯν ᅚλευκαίνοντο κέλευθοι -
- makrai d' aien eleukainonto keleuthoi -
“The long paths were always white”
So Catullus, in Epith. Pelei:
Totaque remigio spumis incanuit unda.
And Ovid, Epis. Oeno:
- remis eruta canet aqua.
The rapid motion of an aquatic animal through the water will produce the effect here
referred to.
CLARKE, "He maketh a path to shine after him - In certain states of the
weather a rapid motion through the water disengages many sparks of phosphoric fire. I
have seen this at sea; once particularly, on a fine clear night, with a good breeze, in a
fast-sailing vessel, I leaned over the stern, and watched this phenomenon for hours. The
wake of the vessel was like a stream of fire; millions of particles of fire were disengaged
by the ship’s swift motion through the water, nearly in the same way as by the electric
cushion and cylinder; and all continued to be absorbed at a short distance from the
vessel. Whether this phenomenon takes place in fresh water or in the Nile, I have had no
opportunity of observing.
The deep to be hoary - By the frost and foam raised by the rapid passage of the
animal through the water.
GILL,"He maketh a path to shine after him,.... Upon the sea, by raising a white
from upon it, through its vehement motion as it passes along, or by the spermaceti it
casts out and leaves behind it. It is said (s) that whales will cut and plough the sea in
such a manner, as to leave a shining glittering path behind them, the length of a German
mile, which is three of ours;
one would think the deep to be hoary; to be old and grey headed, or white like the
hair of the head of an old man, a figure often used of the sea by poets (t); and hence
"Nereus" (u), which is the sea, is said to be an old man, because the froth in the waves of
it looks like white hair.
JAMISO ,"path — the foam on his track.
hoary — as hair of the aged.
COKE, "Job 41:32. One would think the deep to be hoary— He accounteth the deep

78. as his habitation. Heath. Houbigant renders the verse, He leaves behind him a
shining path; he esteems the deep to be dry land.—Rutilantia post se vestigia
relinquit; abyssum reputat ut aridum tellurem.
PULPIT, "He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be
hoary. He leaves a white trail behind him as he passes from sand-bank to sand-bank
through the shallows. It is as if the ile had grown old and put on hoar hairs.
BI, "He maketh a path to shine after him.
Phosphorescence
What was that illumined path? It was phosphorescence. You find it in the wake of a ship
in the night, especially after rough weather. Phosphorescence is the lightning of the sea.
I found a book of John Ruskin, and the first sentence my eyes fell upon was his
description of phosphorescence, in which he calls it the “lightning of the sea.” It is the
waves of the sea diamonded; it is the inflorescence of the billows; the waves of the sea
crimsoned, as was the deep after the sea fight of Lepanto; the waves of the sea on fire.
There are times when from horizon to horizon the entire ocean seems in conflagration
with this strange splendor, as it changes every moment to tamer or more dazzling colour
on all sides of you. You sit looking over the rail of the yacht or ocean steamer, watching
and waiting to see what new thing the God of beauty will do with the Atlantic. This
phosphorescence is the appearance of myriads of the animal kingdom rising, falling,
flashing, living, dying. These luminous animalcules for nearly one hundred and fifty
years have been the study of naturalists and the fascination of all who have brain enough
to think. Now God, who puts in His Bible nothing trivial or useless, calls the attention of
Job, the greatest scientist of his day, to this phosphorescence, and as the leviathan of the
deep sweeps past, points out the fact that “He maketh a path to shine after him.” (T. De
Witt Talmage.)
33 othing on earth is its equal—
a creature without fear.
BAR ES, "Upon earth there is not his like - Hebrew, “Upon the dust.” The
meaning is, that no other animal can be compared with him; or the land does not
produce such a monster as this. For size, strength, ferocity, courage, and
formidableness, no animal will hear a comparison with him. This can be true only of
some such fierce creature as the crocodile.
Who is made without fear - Margin, “Or, behave themselves with fear.” The

79. meaning is, that he is created not to be afraid; he has no dread of others In this respect
he is unlike other animals. The Septuagint renders this, “He is made to be sported with
by my angels.”
CLARKE, "Upon earth there is not his like - There is no creature among
terrestrial animals so thoroughly dangerous, so exceedingly strong, and so difficult to be
wounded or slain.
Who is made without fear - Perhaps there is no creature who is at all acquainted
with man, so totally destitute of fear as the crocodile.
GILL,"Upon the earth there is not his like,.... As to form and figure; in most
creatures there is some likeness between those in the sea and on the land, as sea horses,
calves, &c. but there is no likeness between a whale and any creature on earth; there is
between the crocodile and the lizard; nor is any like the whale for the largeness of its
bulk; the Targum is,
"his dominion is not on the earth,''
but on the sea, as Aben Ezra notes; but rather the sense is, there is no power on earth
that he obeys and submits to, as the Tigurine version; though the meaning seems to be,
that there is none like him, for what follows:
who is made without fear; yet this agrees not neither with the crocodile, which
Aelianus (w) says is fearful; nor with the whale, which will make off and depart at the
shoutings of men, blowing of trumpets, and making use of any tinkling instruments, at
which it is frightened, as Strabo (x), Philostratus (y), and Olaus Magnus (z), relate. It is
observed (a); of their valour, that if they see a man or a long boat, they go under water
and run away; and are never known to endeavour to hurt any man, but when in danger;
though a voyager (b) of our own says,
"we saw whales in Whale-sound, and lying aloft on the water, not fearing our ships, or
aught else.''
The Targum is,
"he is made that he might not be broken;''
or bruised, as Bochart; as reptiles usually may, among whom the crocodile may be
reckoned, because of its short legs; and yet is made with such a hard scaly skin, that it
cannot be crushed, bruised, and broken. Aben Ezra observes that some say, the word
"hu", that is, "he", is wanting, and should be supplied, "he", that is, "God, made him
without fear"; or that he might not be bruised; wherefore Cocceius interprets the
following words entirely of God.
HE RY 33-34, "2. Having given this particular account of his parts, and his power,
and his comely proportion, he concludes with four things in general concerning this

80. animal: - (1.) That he is a non-such among the inferior creatures: Upon earth there is not
his like, Job_41:33. No creature in this world is comparable to him for strength and
terror. Or the earth is here distinguished from the sea: His dominion is not upon the
earth (so some), but in the waters. None of all the savage creatures upon earth come
near him for bulk and strength, and it is well for man that he is confined to the waters
and there has a watch set upon him (Job_7:12) by the divine Providence, for, if such a
terrible creature were allowed to roam and ravage upon this earth, it would be an unsafe
and uncomfortable habitation for the children of men, for whom it is intended. (2.) That
he is more bold and daring than any other creature whatsoever: He is made without
fear. The creatures are as they are made; the leviathan has courage in his constitution,
nothing can frighten him; other creatures, quite contrary, seem as much designed for
flying as this for fighting. So, among men, some are in their natural temper bold, others
are timorous. (3.) That he is himself very proud; though lodged in the deep, yet he
beholds all high things, Job_41:34. The rolling waves, the impending rocks, the
hovering clouds, and the ships under sail with top and top-gallant, this mighty animal
beholds with contempt, for he does not think they either lessen him or threaten him.
Those that are great are apt to be scornful. (4.) That he is a king over all the children of
pride, that is, he is the proudest of all proud ones. He has more to be proud of (so Mr.
Caryl expounds it) than the proudest people in the world have; and so it is a
mortification to the haughtiness and lofty looks of men. Whatever bodily
accomplishments men are proud of, and puffed up with, the leviathan excels them and is
a king over them. Some read it so as to understand it of God: He that beholds all high
things, even he, is King over all the children of pride; he can tame the behemoth (Job_
40:19) and the leviathan, big as they are, and stout-hearted as they are. This discourse
concerning those two animals was brought in to prove that it is God only who can look
upon proud men and abase them, bring them low and tread them down, and hide them
in the dust (Job_40:11-13), and so it concludes with a quod erat demonstrandum -
which was to be demonstrated; there is one that beholds all high things, and, wherein
men deal proudly, is above them; he is King over all the children of pride, whether
brutal or rational, and can make them all either bend or break before him, Isa_2:11. The
lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down,
and thus the Lord alone shall be exalted.
JAMISO ,"who — being one who, etc.
BE SO , "Job 41:33. Upon the earth there is not his like — o creature in this
world is comparable to him for strength and terror. Or the earth is here
distinguished from the sea; for the Hebrew, ‫משׁלו‬ ‫עפר‬ ‫על‬ ‫,אין‬ een gnal gnapar
mashelo, may be properly rendered, His dominion is not upon the earth; namely,
but upon the waters. Houbigant renders it, His dwelling is not upon the dust; which,
as he understands it of the crocodile, he supposes to express the amphibious nature
of the animal, which, although it is observed every day at morning and evening to
come out of the waters, and to continue awhile on the land, yet, properly speaking, is
an inhabitant of the waters, and it is well for man that he is so; for if such a terrible
creature were allowed to roam and ravage upon this earth, it would be an unsafe
and uncomfortable habitation for the children of men, for whom it is intended. Who
is made without fear — Fears no enemy, as being sensible of his own invincible

81. strength. But ‫חת‬ ‫,לבלי‬ libli chath, may be rendered, so as he cannot be bruised, or
broken; namely, because of his prodigious hardness, of which we have spoken
before.
COKE,"Job 41:33. Upon earth there is not his like— Houbigant renders this, His
dwelling is not upon the dust; He who made him, made him to be without law. This
he supposes to express the amphibious nature of the crocodile; which, though living
under the waters, yet is observed almost every day at morning and evening to come
from thence, and continue awhile on the land. This learned critic also gives a turn to
the next verse very different from that in which it is generally understood. Heath
renders the verse, and with great seeming propriety, as referring to, and closing the
description of, the crocodile: He will look upon any thing with contempt, be it ever
so high: he is king over all the sons of rapine; i.e. the most ravenous beasts,
according to the Syriac and Arabic. "But," says Houbigant, "I am persuaded that
these words do not refer to the crocodile; but close the parable here taken from the
beasts: God openly declaring who he is of whom he spoke in the 10th verse (who
then is able to stand before me?) and that he meant that Leviathan, or old serpent,
who raised his proud look even to the highest, and who possesses great power,
though received from God, and so moderated, that whomever he shall oppress, as he
had oppressed Job, God, when he pleased, could wholly deliver from his power and
tyranny." Dr. Young very well paraphrases these last verses, agreeably to the
common interpretation, as follows:
His like earth bears not on her spacious face, Alone in nature stands his dauntless
race, For utter ignorance of fear renown'd: In wrath he rolls his baleful eye around,
Makes every swol'n disdainful heart subside, And holds dominion o'er the sons of
pride.
REFLECTIO S.—1st, The learned are divided in opinion about Leviathan,
whether the whale or crocodile be meant; some parts of the description seeming
most adapted to the one, and some more peculiar to the other. Whatever animal be
designed, the intention is evidently to shew Job's weakness and God's power. He is
represented here as not to be caught with a hook or bait: not to be terrified or
tamed: his flesh unfit for food: not to be taken with barbed irons and spears. It was
at his peril who approached him; he would rouse himself for battle; therefore it
were wise not to meddle with him. To hope to take him as a fish in a net, were vain;
the very sight of him was terrible. The boldest dared not provoke him; and if a
creature thus intimidate us from approaching him, and so surpass our strength, who
then is able too stand before God, to contend with the Almighty, and to impeach his
proceedings, or awaken his wrath?
2nd, 1. God challenges the universal property of all things; none ever made him
their debtor, whilst every creature receives from him life and breath, and every
thing conducive to the comfort or preservation of it. ote; (1.) The best services that
we can render God, lay no obligation on him; the favour is done to us, that he
enables us to serve him, or accepts our humble duty. (2.) If God giveth not an

82. account to us of his matters, have we the shadow of right to question him? may he
not do what he will with his own?
2. He describes the several parts of this terrible animal Leviathan. one dare
approach him, to flay his skin, or open those devouring jaws, to look on which only,
were enough to make the beholder tremble. His scales, which are his strength and
pride, like a coat of mail, shut close over each other, to defend him; and are so near
each other that even the air cannot come between. When he sneezes, a light shines,
and his eyes are bright and sparkling as the eyelids of the morning. His breath is
like the smoke of the furnace; and hot, like the steam of the boiling caldron; coals
are ready to kindle from his nostrils. Strong and fierce, he fears no sorrow. His
flesh, firm as a rock, defies all the instruments of death. When he lifts up himself in
terrors, the mighty purify themselves, as dying men fly to their prayers. He makes
his bed on the hard sharp-pointed stones. Before him the boiling deep smokes;
behind him, the white foam marks his shining path, as if the deep was hoary-headed
grown. Upon earth there is not his equal, fearless of danger. With contempt he
beholds the vessels sailing by; and is a king over the children of pride, greater than
the greatest of them, in magnitude and bodily strength. Or this is spoken of God,
who beholdeth all these stupendous creatures: and all the children of pride, whether
devils, men, or the most lawless animals, must submit to his government. Highly
then it becomes Job to bow, to humble himself under God's mighty hand, and own
the transcendent glory, greatness, and unsearchableness of all his works and ways.
ELLICOTT, "(33, 34) Upon earth there is not his like.—Some have proposed to
take away the last two verses of Job 41 from their connection with the crocodile, and
to transpose them, referring them to man, so as to come before Job 41:8,
understanding them thus: “There is one whose like is not upon earth, who is made
without dread. He seeth every high thing, and is king over all the proud beasts. To
Him then I say (Job 41:8), Lay thine hand upon him; remember the battle, and do
so no more. Lo! his hope is deceived. Is he indeed cast down at the very eight of
him? He is not so cruel to himself that he should rouse him up. Who then can stand
before me? Who hath first given to me, that I should have to repay him? That which
is under the whole heavens is mine.” It cannot be denied that this makes very good
sense, but it seems to be too great a liberty to take with the text as we find it to adopt
this as the true order of the verses; for in that case, what is there that we might not
deal with in a like manner? Those who advocate this transposition in the order of
the verses would also place Job 40:1-5 so as to follow Job 40:6, in this manner:
“Then Job answered the Lord and said, I know that thou canst do everything, and
that no purpose can be withholden from thee, or that no purpose of thine can be
restrained.” Then the next words come in as the implied answer of God: “Who is
this that hideth my counsel for want of knowledge?” To which Job replies:
“Therefore (I confess that) I have uttered without understanding things too
wonderful for me, which I knew not.” Again God replies, as in Job 38:3; Job 40:7 :
“Hear, I beseech thee and I will speak, I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto
me; to which Job answers: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now
mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor what I have said, and repent it in dust and

83. ashes.” Then the Lord answered Job and said, “Is he that contended with the
Almighty reproved? Does he acknowledge his discomfiture? He that argueth with
God, let him answer this question.” Then Job answered the Lord and said, “Behold
I am vile. What shall I answer thee? I lay my hand before my mouth; once I have
spoken, but I will not answer; yea twice, but I will not do so again.” There is a
certain amount of sharpness and point obtained in thus making this confession the
climax of the poem, and a kind of formal consistency is secured in regarding this
resolution as Job’s last utterance instead of making him speak again, as he does,
according to the present order, in Job 42:2. But this consistency is formal rather
than real, inasmuch as there is no inconsistency in the tone of Job 42:2 seqq., and
the promise of Job 40:5. Whatever advantage may be derived from the re-
arrangement will be a matter for individual taste rather to decide, which will vary
with the individual; and at all events, the climax of Job 42:6 as it stands is a very
noble one, and we may question whether we can heighten its grandeur.
PULPIT, "Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear (comp. Job
41:24-29).
BI 33-34, "Upon the earth there is not his like.
The supremacy of leviathan
The lion is often spoken of as “the king of the forest,” or the “king of beasts,” and in a
similar sense the leviathan is here spoken of as at the head of the animal creation. He is
afraid of none of them; he is subdued by none of them; he is the prey of none of them.
The whole argument, therefore, closes with this statement, that he is at the head of the
animal creation; and it was by this magnificent description of the power of the creatures
which God had made, that it was intended to impress the mind of Job with a sense of the
majesty and power of the Creator. It had the effect. He was overawed with the conviction
of the greatness of God, and he saw how wrong it had been for him to presume to call in
question the justice, or sit in judgment on the doings of such a Being. God did not,
indeed, go into an examination of the various points which had been the subject of
controversy; He did not explain the nature of His moral administration so as to relieve
the mind from perplexity; but He evidently meant to leave the impression that He was
vast and incomprehensible in His government, infinite in power, and had a right to
dispose of His creation as He pleased. No one can doubt that God could, with infinite
ease, have so explained the nature of His administration as to flee the mind from
perplexity, and so as to have resolved the difficulties which hung over the various
subjects which had come into debate between Job and his friends. Why He did not do
this is nowhere stated, and can only be the subject of conjecture. It is possible, however,
that the following suggestions may do something to show the reasons why this was not
done.
1. We are to remember the early period of the world when these transactions
occurred, and when this Book was composed. It was in the infancy of society, and
when little light had gleamed on the human mind in regard to questions of morals
and religion.
2. In that state of things it is not probable that either Job or his friends would have

84. been able to comprehend the principles in accordance with which the wicked are
permitted to flourish, and the righteous are so much afflicted, if they had been
stated. Much higher knowledge than they then possessed about the future world was
necessary to understand the subject which then agitated their minds. It could not
have been done without a very decided reference to the future state, where all these
inequalities are to be removed.
3. It has been the general plan of God to communicate knowledge by degrees: to
impart it when men have had full demonstration of their own imbecility, and when
they feel the need of Divine teaching; and to reserve the great truths of religion for an
advanced period of the world. In accordance with this arrangement, God has been
pleased to keep in reserve, from age to age, certain great and momentous truths, and
such as were particularly adapted to throw light on the subjects of discussion
between Job and his friends. They are the truths pertaining to the resurrection of the
body; the retributions of the Day of Judgment; the glories of heaven and the woes of
hell, where all the inequalities of the present state may receive their final and equal
adjustment. These great truths were reserved for the triumph and glory of
Christianity; and to have stated them in the time of Job would have been to have
anticipated the most important revelations of that system. The truths of which we
are now in possession would have relieved much of the anxiety then felt, and solved
most of these questions; but the world was not then in the proper state for their
revelation.
4. It was a very proper lesson to be taught men, to bow with submission, to a
sovereign God, without knowing the reason of His doings. No lesson, perhaps, could
be learnt of higher value than this. To a proud, self-confident, philosophic mind, a
mind prone to rely on its own resources and trust to its own deductions, it was of the
highest importance to inculcate the duty of submission to will and sovereignty. This
is a lesson which we often have to learn in life, and which almost all the trying
dispensations of providence are fitted to teach us. It is not because God has no
reason for what He does; it is not because He intends we shall never know the
reason: but it is because it is our duty to bow with submission to His will, and to
acquiesce in His right to reign, even when we cannot see the reason of His doings.
Could we reason it out, and then submit because we saw the reason, our submission
would not be to our Maker’s pleasure, but to the deductions of our own minds.
Hence, all along, He so deals with man, by concealing the reason of His doings, as to
bring him to submission to His authority, and to humble all human pride. To this
termination all the reasonings of the Almighty in this Book are conducted; and after
the exhibition of His power in the tempest, after His sublime description of His own
works, after His appeal to the numerous things which are, in fact, incomprehensible
to man, we feel that God is great—that it is presumptuous in man to sit in judgment
on His works, and that the mind, no matter what it does, should bow before Him
with profound veneration and silence. (Albert Barnes.).
34 It looks down on all that are haughty;

85. it is king over all that are proud.”
BAR ES, "He beholdeth all high things - That is, he looks down on everything
as inferior to him.
He is a king over all the children of pride - Referring, by “the children of pride,”
to the animals that are bold, proud, courageous - as the lion, the panther, etc. The lion is
often spoken of as “the king of the forest,” or “the king of beasts,” and in a similar sense
the leviathan is here spoken of as at the head of the animal creation. He is afraid of none
of them; he is subdued by none of them; he is the prey of none of them. The whole
argument, therefore, closes with this statement, that he is at the head of the animal
creation; and it was by this magnificent description of the power of the creatures which
God had made, that it was intended to impress the mind of Job with a sense of the
majesty and power of the Creator. It had the effect. He was overawed with a conviction
of the greatness of God, and he saw how wrong it had been for him to presume to call in
question the justice, or sit in judgment on the doings, of such a Being. God did not,
indeed, go into an examination of the various points which had been the subject of
controversy; he did not explain the nature of his moral administration so as to relieve
the mind from perplexity; but he evidently meant to leave the impression that he was
vast and incomprehensible in his government, infinite in power, and had a right to
dispose of his creation as he pleased. No one can doubt that God could with infinite ease
have so explained the nature of his administration as to free the mind from perplexity,
and so as to have resolved the difficulties which hung over the various subjects which
had come into debate between Job and his friends. “Why” he did not do this, is nowhere
stated, and can only be the subject of conjecture. It is possible, however, that the
following suggestions may do something to show the reasons why this was not done:
(1) We are to remember the early period of the world when these transactions
occurred, and when this book was composed. It was in the infancy of society, and when
little light had gleamed on the human mind in regard to questions of morals and
religion.
(2) In that state of things, it is not probable that either Job or his friends would have
been able to comprehend the principles in accordance with which the wicked are
permitted to flourish and the righteous are so much afflicted, if they had been stated.
Much higher knowledge than they then possessed about the future world was necessary
to understand the subject which then agitated their minds. It could not have been done
without a very decided reference to the future state, where all these inequalities are to be
removed.
(3) It has been the general plan of God to communicate knowledge by degrees; to
impart it when people have had full demonstration of their own imbecility, and when
they feel their need of divine teaching; and to reserve the great truths of religion for an
advanced period of the world. In accordance with this arrangement, God bas been
pleased to keep in reserve, from age to age, certain great and momentous truths, and
such as were particularly adapted to throw light on the subjects of discussion between
Job and his friends. They are the truths pertaining to the resurrection of the body; the
retributions of the day of judgment; the glories of heaven and the woes of hell, where all
the inequalities of the present state may receive their final and equal adjustment. These

86. great truths were reserved for the triumph and glory of Christianity; and to have stated
them in the time of Job, would have been to have anticipated the most important
revelations of that system. The truths of which we are now in possession would have
relieved much of the perplexity then felt, and solved most of those questions; but the
world was not then in the proper state for their revelation.
(4) It was a very important lesson to be taught to people, to bow with submission to a
sovereign God, without knowing the reason of his doings. No lesson, perhaps, could be
learned of higher value than this. To a proud, self-confident, philosophic mind, a mind
prone to rely on its own resources, and trust to its own deductions, it was of the highest
importance to inculcate the duty of submission to “will” and to “sovereignty.” This is a
lesson which we often have to learn in life, and which almost all the trying dispensations
of Providence are fitted to teach us. It is not because God has no reason for what he
does; it is not because he intends we shall never know the reason; but it is because it is
our “duty” to bow with submission to his will, and to acquiesce in his right to reign, even
when we cannot see the reason of his doings. Could we “reason it out,” and then submit
“because” we saw the reason, our submission would not be to our Maker’s pleasure, but
to the deductions of our own minds.
Hence, all along, he so deals with man, by concealing the reason of his doings, as to
bring him to submission to his authority, and to humble all human pride. To this
termination all the reasonings of the Almighty in this book are conducted; and after the
exhibition of his power in the tempest, after his sublime description of his own works,
after his appeal to the numerous things which are in fact incomprehensible by man, we
feel that God is great - that it is presumptuous in man to sit in judgment on his works -
and that the mind, no matter what he does, should bow before him with profound
veneration and silence. These are the great lessons which we are every day called to learn
in the actual dispensations of his providence; and the “arguments” for these lessons were
never elsewhere stated with so much power and sublimity as in the closing chapters of
the book of Job. We have the light of the Christian religion; we can look into eternity,
and see how the inequalities of the present order of things can be adjusted there; and we
have sources of consolation which neither Job nor his friends enjoyed; but still, with all
this light, there are numerous cases where we are required to bow, not because we see
the reason of the divine dealings, but because such is the will of God. To us, in such
circumstances, this argument of the Almighty is adapted to teach the most salutary
lessons.
CLARKE, "He is a king over all the children of pride - There is no animal in
the waters that does not fear and fly from him. Hence the Chaldee renders it, all the
offspring of Fishes. Calmet says, that by the children of pride the Egyptians are meant;
that the crocodile is called their king, because he was one of their principal divinities;
that the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh, which signifies a crocodile; and that the
Egyptians were proverbial for their pride, as may be seen in Eze_32:12. And it is very
natural to say that Job, wishing to point out a cruel animal, adored by the Egyptians, and
considered by them as their chief divinity, should describe him under the name of king
of all the children of pride. Houbigant considers the ‫לויתן‬ livyathan, the coupled dragon,
to be emblematical of Satan: “He lifts his proud look to God, and aspires to the high
heavens; and is king over all the sons of pride.” He is, in effect, the governor of every
proud, haughty, impious man. What a king! What laws! What subjects! Others think that
Men are intended by the sons of pride; and that it is with the design to abate their pride,

87. and confound them in the high notions they have of their own importance, that God
produces and describes an animal of whom they are all afraid, and whom none of them
can conquer.
After all, what is leviathan? I have strong doubts whether either whale or crocodile be
meant. I think even the crocodile overrated by this description. He is too great, too
powerful, too important, in this representation. No beast, terrestrial or aquatic, deserves
the high character here given, though that character only considers him as
unconquerably strong, ferociously cruel, and wonderfully made. Perhaps leviathan was
some extinct mammoth of the waters, as behemoth was of the land. However, I have
followed the general opinion by treating him as the crocodile throughout these notes;
but could not finish without stating my doubts on the subject, though I have nothing
better to offer in the place of the animal in behalf of which almost all learned men and
critics argue, and concerning which they generally agree. As to its being an emblem
either of Pharaoh or the devil, I can say little more than, I doubt. The description is
extremely dignified; and were we sure of the animal, I have no doubt we should find it in
every instance correct. But after all that has been said, we have yet to learn what
leviathan is!
GILL,"He beholdeth all high things,.... Or "who beholdeth all high things"; even
he that made leviathan, that is, God, as the above interpreter: he does that which Job
was bid to do, and could not; beholds everyone that is proud, and abases him, Job_
40:11; and therefore he ought to acknowledge his sovereignty and superiority over him,
and submit to him;
he is a king over all the children of pride: the proud angels that fell, and all the
proud sons of men; proud monarchs and potentates of the earth, such as
Nebuchadnezzar and others, Dan_4:31. But interpreters generally understand all this
either of the crocodile, or of a fish of the whale kind. Bochart observes, that the
crocodile, though it has short legs, will behold, and meet unterrified, beasts abundantly
taller than itself, and with one stroke of its tail break their legs and bring them low; and
will destroy not only men, but all sorts of beasts, as elephants, camels, horses, oxen,
boars, and every animal whatsoever. But others apply this to the whale, which beholds
the tossing waves of the sea, which mount up to heaven; the clouds of heaven on high
over it; the lofty cliffs or shores, and ships of the greatest bulk and height; and which,
when it lifts up itself above the water, equals the high masts of ships, and is abundantly
superior to all the tribes of watery animals, or the beasts of the sea. But this seems not
wholly to come up to the expressions here used. Upon the whole, as there are some
things that agree with the crocodile, and not the whale; and others that agree with the
whale, of one sort or another, and not with the crocodile; it is uncertain which is meant,
and it seems as if neither of them were intended: and to me very probable is the opinion
of Johannes Camerensis (c), and to which the learned Schultens most inclines, that the
leviathan is the dragon of the land sort, called leviathan, the piercing serpent, as distinct
from the dragon in the sea, Isa_27:1; which agrees with the description of the leviathan
in the whole: as its prodigious size; its terrible countenance; its wide jaws; its three
forked tongue; its three rows of sharp teeth; its being covered all over, back and belly,
with thick scales, not to be penetrated by arrows and darts; its flaming eyes, its fiery
breath, and being most terrible to all, and fearless of every creature; it will engage with
any, and conquer and kill an elephant (d); hence in Ethiopia dragons have no other
names than elephant killers: and so it may be said to be king over all the children of

88. pride; of all which proof may be given from various writers, as Pliny (e), Aelianus (f),
Philostratus (g), and others; and particularly the dragon Attilius Regulus, the Roman
general, killed near Bagrade in Africa, is a proof itself of almost all the above articles, as
Osorius (h) has described it; nor is it any objection that the leviathan is represented as
being in the sea, since the dragon, even the land dragon, will plunge into rivers, and is
often found in lakes called seas, and in maritime places, and will go into the sea itself, as
Pliny (i) and Philostratus (k) relate. To which may be added, that this creature was found
among the Troglodytes (l) who lived near the Red sea, and not far from Arabia, where
Job dwelt, and so might be well known by him: and besides, of all creatures, it is the
most lively emblem of the devil, which all the ancient Christian writers make leviathan to
be; and Satan is expressly called the dragon in Rev_12:3. So Suidas (m) says, the devil is
called a dragon in Job. But be the leviathan what it may, it certainly is an illustrious
instance of the power of God in making it; and therefore Job and every other man ought
to submit to him that made it, in all things, and be humble under his mighty hand;
owning freely, that it is his right hand, and his only, and not man's, that can save, either
in a temporal or spiritual sense; for which end this and the behemoth are instanced in.
JAMISO ,"beholdeth — as their superior.
children of pride — the proud and fierce beasts. So Job_28:8; Hebrew, “sons of
pride.” To humble the pride of man and to teach implicit submission, is the aim of
Jehovah’s speech and of the book; therefore with this as to leviathan, the type of God in
His lordship over creation, He closes.
BE SO ,"Job 41:34. He beholdeth all high things — He looks about him with
contempt and disdain on every thing he sees. He does not turn his back upon, or
hide his face from, the highest and mightiest creatures, but beholds them with a bold
and undaunted countenance, as being without any fear of them. He is king over all
the children of pride — He carries himself with princely majesty and courage
toward the strongest, loftiest, and fiercest creatures, which, though far higher in
stature than himself, he strikes down with one stroke of his tail, as he commonly
does cows and horses, and sometimes elephants. Heath’s translation of this verse
seems peculiarly proper, as referring to, and closing the description of, the
crocodile: He will look upon any thing with contempt, be it ever so high: he is king
over all the sons of rapine; that is, over the most ravenous beasts, according to the
Syriac and Arabic. Dr. Young’s paraphrase on these last two verses will please the
reader, and give him a juster idea of their contents, than any thing we have said
upon them:
“His like earth bears not on her spacious face;
Alone in nature stands his dauntless race,
For utter ignorance of fear renown’d;
In wrath he rolls his baleful eyes around;
Makes every swoll’n, disdainful heart subside,
And holds dominion o’er the sons of pride.”
Here end the words of God to Job, whereby he sets forth his wisdom and power, in
the works of the creation: from whence Job might be led to infer, that the wisdom

89. and power of God being so immense, men ought to speak most reverently of him,
and think most humbly and lowly of themselves; persuaded that, though we cannot
always see the reason why the divine providence suffers certain things to come to
pass, yet we ought to rest assured that they are wisely, and therefore justly, ordered,
and therefore we should resignedly submit our selves to the divine will in all things.
PULPIT, "He beholdeth all high things He looks without fear on everything that is
high and great. othing alarms him; nothing disturbs his equanimity. He is a king
over all the children (literally, sons) of pride (comp. Job 28:8). He feels himself
superior to all other animals that come within his ken. They may be "sons of pride,"
but he has more to be proud of than the proudest of them. Ordinarily, the lion poses
as "the king of beasts;" but here he is, as it were, deposed, and relegated into the
second position (Job 38:39), the crocodile being exalted into his place. From
different points of view, there are several great beasts which might be regarded as
the lords of the animal creation.